Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MILITARY MANOEUVRES ACT.

The Vice Chamberlain of the Household (Sir VICTOR WARRENDER) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:

I have received your Address praying that I will make an Order-in-Council under the Military Manoeuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to your House on the Fourteenth day of February last. I will comply with your advice.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Beading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Marriages Provisional Orders Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

NEW WRIT.

For the county of Hertford (Hitchin Division), in the room of Edward Anthony James Lytton (commonly called Viscount Knebworth), deceased.

VICTORIA INFIRMARY OF GLASGOW ACT, 1888 (AMENDMENT), ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. LIDDALL: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider including a scheme of unemployment insurance for agricultural workers in the measure which he is to submit to the House this Session?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I am afraid I cannot anticipate the terms of future legislation.

Mr. LIDDALL: Will the Minister be prepared further to consider the matter if joint representation is made by the employers and the employés?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will consider any representations. I have already had some, but I will consider any further representations that may be made.

INSURANCE (LEGISLATION).

Mr. LAWSON: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state what action the Government will take when the present unemployment insurance arrangements end in June this year; and whether he is contemplating introducing a Bill at an early date?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The Government have announced that they intend to introduce comprehensive legislation on this subject this Session. It will not be practicable, however, to bring this legislation into operation by 30th June and a Bill for prolonging the existing arrangements temporarily will therefore be introduced at an early date.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the Bill will be introduced?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot say definitely, but I should think it will be soon after the Whitsuntide Recess.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Bill deal only with questions relating to the means test and its present administration, or will it also continue the Anomalies Act at the same time.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member had better wait and see the Bill.
The Anomalies Act is one of those Acts which expires at the end of June and will be extended.

Mr. BUCHANAN: All in one Bill?

Sir H. BETTERTON: All in one Bill.

Mr. BATEY: If it is the intention to introduce the Bill immediately after the Whitsuntide Recess, will it be printed so that we can see the Bill before the Recess?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will see that it is printed in ample time for hon. Members to see it before the Debate.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED (EX-SEEVICE MEN).

Mr. TINKER: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases for the last 12 months of ex-service men who have been in receipt of treatment allowances some time during the two years before claiming unemployment benefits and who have been refused because they did not fulfil the 30-stamp qualification?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that the information is not available.

Insured persons in the Hosiery Industry classification recorded as unemployed at certain Employment Exchanges.


Employment Exchange.
23rd January, 1933.
24th April, 1933.


Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.


Nottingham
…
…
344
891
389
776


HuckNall
…
…
106
62
100
170


Sutton-in-Ashfield
…
…
149
447
121
358


Mansfield
…
…
47
72
56
142

HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS.

Mr. LIDDALL: 22 and 23.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he will include in the forthcoming legislation regulating benefit for the unemployment provisions to the effect that any treatment required by these unemployed and previously insured persons, subsequent to 1933, shall be provided by and through insurance committees, on the same lines as medical benefit is now being administered, and not through medical officers appointed by or under the control of the public assistance committees;
(2) What steps are to be taken to restore to benefit those insured persons

APPLICATIONS FOR WORK (STATIONERY).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to make a further statement regarding the provision of printed application for Work papers for the unemployed?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have given careful consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion that a supply of this stationery should be on sale at Employment Exchanges and regret that it is not practicable to adopt it.

HOSIERY WORKERS, MIDLANDS.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of hosiery workers totally unemployed and temporarily stopped on the register of the Employment Exchanges at Nottingham, HuckNail, Sutton-in-Ashfield, and Mansfield in January, 1933, and April, 1933, respectively?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

who, owing to continued unemployment, will lapse from insurance and be disentitled to medical benefit at the end of December, 1933?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): In reply to both questions I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of the 4th April to the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir R. Aske).

Mr. LIDDALL: In view of the fact that in the city of LinColn alone 1,000 persons will be affected, will the right hon. Gentleman further consider this question?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir, I have nothing to add to the previous answer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the extremely large numbers affected, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the whole question between now and the end of the year?

Sir H. YOUNG: I must remind the hon. Member that these matters were fully debated during the passage of the National Health Insurance Act last year.

Mr. MAXTON: But was the House then fully aware of the social consequences of what it was doing; and will the right hon. Gentleman now try to get us out of the difficulty into which we got then?

Sir H. YOUNG: Great pains were taken during the passage of that Act to put the House into possession of all the facts.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it not possible for the Minister to issue Regulations with regard to this matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: That would be contrary to the terms of the Act.

UNEMPLOYMENT, SICKNESS AND BENEFITS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can make arrangements to close the gap between the cessation of sickness benefit and the commencement of unemployment benefit in cases where insured persons have been referred to regional medical officers?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have now made arrangements whereby an insured person who is summoned for examination by a regional medical officer will be advised to see his own doctor on the morning following his examination. The doctor will then have received the report of the regional medical officer and if that officer is of opinion that the insured person is fit for work, and the doctor agrees, he will so inform the insured person, with the result that he will be able to attend at the Employment Exchange the same morning and claim unemployment benefit. As sickness benefit will be payable up to and including the date of examination by the regional medical officer there need no longer be any gap during which no benefit is payable provided that the claimant satisfies the usual conditions.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE (GREAT BRITAIN'S CONTRIBUTION).

Mr. HALL-CALNE: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour the estimated cost of Great
Britain's contributions to the International Labour Office; and whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a considered report as to the estimated value of the work achieved so far as it affects this country?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The estimated amount of Great Britain's contributions in the financial year 1933–34 towards the expenses of the International Labour Organisation is £59,500. The annual reports of the Ministry of Labour contain statements of the work of the International Labour Organisation in each year and on this basis it is possible for my hon. Friend and others to form their own opinion of its value.

ALIENS (HANS ALTMANN).

Mr. COCKS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Hans Altmann, a German subject, was refused permission to land by the immigration officer at Harwich on 16th March, seeing that he informed the authorities that he had no intention of looking for work, that he had friends in London who had offered him hospitality, name and address given, and that he had a well-to-do relative in one of the British Dominions who would be arriving in London in May; whether he is aware that this German refugee, after being refused to land, was escorted back on board ship, kept in a locked cabin during the stay of the ship in Harwich, and then forced to return to Flushing at his own expense; and whether he will make an investigation into the matter with a view to giving this man permission to land?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Hans Altmann was refused leave to land on the 16th March because he was unable to satisfy the immigration officer that he was in a position to support himself during his intended stay of from two to three months until the arrival of his uncle from South Africa and he had no evidence that he would be maintained in the meanwhile by friends. On his being refused leave to land, he was taken back to the ship and placed in the charge of the appropriate ship's officer. I have no information as to his treatment on board by the shipping company, but an obligation rests on the company in such a case
to prevent the alien from landing and to remove him from the United Kingdom. There appear to be no circumstances which would have justified the grant of exceptional facilities to this man.

Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man is a Jewish writer fleeing from persecution in Germany, that he was invited by friends in London to come here as their guest, that he gave their name and address, and that he had no intention of seeking work here? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the man was told to find 200 marks, and that it was essential that that sum of money should be found before he was allowed to land?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have stated that there was no evidence that he would be maintained by his friends.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WORKMEN'S INSURANCE.

Mr. TINKER: 9.
asked the Home Secretary if he is now in a position to say if the colliery owners of Lancashire have completed the scheme for the insurance of workmen who meet with accidents and are entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and can he state what is the position in the rest of the country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the Lancashire scheme referred to in my reply to the hon. Member on the 6th April has not yet been carried though, but that further replies from colliery owners are awaited. Revised schemes are under consideration but have not been fiNaily adopted in North Staffordshire or Cumberland. In the other areas arrangements as indicated in my previous reply have, I am informed, been made, but a return showing the position in greater detail has been asked for. The hon. Member may rest assured that I shall continue to pay close attention to this matter.

QUOTA SYSTEM.

Mr. B0ULT0N (for Mr. SMITHERS): 59.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet received from the central council a decision with regard to the quota and the co-ordination of district minimum prices; and whether he
proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to their recommendations?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on Tuesday to similar questions addressed to me by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) and the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Robinson).

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING OFFENCES.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 10.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that 9,871 fewer summonses on the application of the police for motor-noise offences in the Metropolis were issued in 1932 than in 1931; and whether this is due to a decline in the actual number of such offences or to the fact that the police have not taken action where such noises have occurred?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Commissioner of Police informs me that this reduction in the number of summonses is accounted for partly by an extension of the system of giving verbal warnings or written cautions in certain types of cases instead of issuing summonses, but that there was also a considerable decline in the total number of cases dealt with. It is not possible to ascribe definite reasons for this decline, but it may be attributed partly to an improvement in the position as regards noise offences, and partly to the fact that the police—and particularly the motor patrols—are concentrating more on the various offences against the provisions of the law which relate to safety and the prevention of accidents.

Mr. MAGNAY: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution, conviction, and penalising under the Road Traffic Act of South Shields and Gateshead motorists at Jarrow and North Riding police courts, respectively, for alleged offences, after they had themselves reported the circumstances of minor mishaps in which they were accidentally involved; and whether he will call for full reports of such prosecutions with a view to a remission of the fines inflicted?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My attention had not previously been drawn to these cases but I have caused inquiries to be made and I regret that I find no grounds on
which I should be justified, consistently with my public duty, in advising any remission of the fines imposed.

TRAFFIC CONTROL (PEDESTRIANS).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 12.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the advisability of having instructions issued that pedestrians as well as motorists shall observe and obey the automatic traffic signals?

Sir J. GILM0UR: In the interests of pedestrians themselves, I do not think it would be right to advise them to pay regard only to the light signals at intersections under signal control. Any vehicle admitted to the intersection by a green light signal may either proceed straight ahead or clear the intersection by making a right or left-hand turn, and in these circumstances it is essential that pedestrians should watch the traffic itself and not be guided solely by the signals.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the fact that the Chief Constables' reports assign practically the Majority of motor accidents to the fault of pedestrians, and does he not think that this method would tend to minimise these accidents?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is there any method in the interests of motorists whereby pedestrians could be kept from walking in the streets?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope that a reasonable compromise may be found.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

SPECIAL CONSTABULARY (RESIGNATIONS).

Mr. HALL-CALNE: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the resignation of more than 120 members of the J division of the Metropolitan special constabulary as a protest against what they regard as an injustice done to a chief inspector by the disciplinary board; and if he can state what were the reasons for demanding the resignation of this officer?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the number of resignations received to date in connection with this matter is 53 and that the strength of J division of the Metro-
politan Special Constabulary Reserve is now 627. The Chief Inspector was required to resign in consequence of the findings of a discipline board that he had deliberately failed to comply with the instructions of his superior officer and that he had not observed the spirit of an undertaking given by him to a previous discipline board in June, 1932. The board which considered the case consisted of a county court judge, a leading member of the Bar and an experienced solicitor. Their recommendation was approved by the Commandant-in-Chief and confirmed by the Commissioner of Police. The case received most careful consideration, and the resignations which followed would appear to have arisen out of a misapprehension of the facts.

METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.

Mr. McENTEE: 20.
asked the Home Secretary if the medical advisers of the Metropolitan Police force have indicated the ages during which a constable should be in the highest physical condition; and whether, having regard to the prolongation of life as shown in recent statistics, a man aged 50 years is no longer to be considered fit to do the normal duties of a policeman?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the question is in the negative. But I would suggest that the hon. Member should refer to the White Paper in which the reasons for instituting a short service class of constables in the Metropolitan Police have been explained, and he will see that the case for this proposal is not based on merely medical considerations.

Mr. McENTEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any reasons why these constables should be compelled to resign so early, when Cabinet Ministers can keep on indefinitely into their second and third childhood?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The conditions are very different.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in drawing up his proposed Bill for reforming the Metropolitan Police, he will include any provisions to enable more satisfactory co-operation between that force and the provincial police with a view to the more effective prevention of crime?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think that such a provision would be within the scope of the Bill. My hon. Friend will have seen that it deals only with necessary amendments of existing statutes to enable effect to be given to the proposals in the White Paper which has been laid before Parliament.

Captain MACDONALD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a favourable opportunity to bring about a closer liaison between the Metropolitan and the provincial police?

Sir J. GILMOUR: We are always glad to be able to do what we can to assist that, but I do not think that this is an appropriate opportunity.

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that these snobbish militarist proposals will not be imposed on the provincial police?

PROTECTION OF LAPWINGS ACT.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 14.
asked the Home Secretary what steps are being taken by inspectors or by the police to prevent contraventions by restaurants of the provisions of the Protection of Lapwings Act, 1928?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Act contains no provisions for the appointment or employment of inspectors, and it would not be feasible for the police to undertake any systematic visitation of restaurants for the purpose of seeing whether the Act is observed. If information is supplied to them appropriate action is taken, and special watch is kept at places where plovers' eggs are likely to be sold. In March of this year I caused a special notice to be published in the Press calling attention to the provisions of the Act.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 15.
asked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions have been initiated by his Department in the last 12 months under the Protection of Lapwings Act, 1928; what proportion of these prosecutions has been against dealers or poulterers, and what proportion against restaurant keepers; how many of these prosecutions were for the sale of plovers' eggs, and how many for the sale of plovers during the close season; and what was the total number of convictions obtained under these four heads?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Proceedings for contraventions of the Protection of Lapwings Act, 1928, are not initiated by my Department, but I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no prosecutions have been taken in the Metropolitan Police District under the Act during the past 12 months. I have no information regarding prosecutions outside the Metropolitan Police District.

BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.

Mr. DONNER: 18.
asked the Home Secretary what is the approximate number of ex-Borstal inmates at present serving ordinary prison sentences in His Majesty's prisons?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The information is not available in the form asked for in the question. The latest available figures are contained in the report of the Prison Commissioners for the year 1931, and show that, of 37,417 receptions into prison on conviction during 1931, there were 1,220 who had previously been detained in Borstal institutions.

Mr. DONNER: 19.
asked the Home Secretary the percentage number of ex-Borstal inmates reported as having been reformed through institutional treatment during the past year; and what period of time is allowed to elapse before the lads are included in the figure as having responded to training?

Sir J. GILM0UR: The usual method of estimating the result of Borstal training is to ascertain how many have kept free from conflict with the law after not less than two years at liberty. The last review on this basis was made in 1930 when, of 609 persons discharged from Borstal institutions for the first time in 1928, it was found that approximately 60 per cent. of them had not been charged in court again during a period of two years. I regret that corresponding figures for 1931 and 1932 are not available.

CORONERS' INQUESTS.

Mr. COCKS: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a tendency amongst coroners to hold inquests, especially in cases of suicide, in camera; and whether he will issue a circular to coroners expressing the view
that in the public interest all inquests, except in exceptional cases, should be held in public?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of any such tendency and I have no authority to offer coroners any advice on this matter which is one for their own discretion, having regard to the circumstances of the particular case.

Mr. COCKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman no authority to issue a circular to coroners? Cannot something be done in the public interest to see that these inquests are held in public?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no reason to think that the public interest is in any way being interfered with.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that my hon. Friend has been misinformed, and that neither of the two inquests he has in mind was held in camera?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I believe that is the case.

Mr. LOGAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not deprecate these sensational Press announcements in regard to these cases of suicides, as not being for the public good at all?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it is most undesirable that these cases should be gone into in the manner in which they are gone into sometimes.

Mr. COCKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember the "brides in the bath case," where the murder was detected only because the inquests were held in public?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Home Secretary also aware that where these cases have been gone into in public several similar cases have followed almost immediately?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SUBSIDISED HOUSES, LIVERPOOL (RENTS).

Mr. RANKIN: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now come to any decision with regard to the application of 5,800 tenants of Addison houses in the Liverpool area for a reduction in their rents; and what is his general policy with regard to this matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: The application of the Liverpool Corporation for a reduction of the rents of the houses referred to has recently been the subject of investigation and on the facts disclosed I am advised that no reduction is justified. As regards the second part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the report of my Department for the year 1931–32 (pages 100 to 103).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether, when considering this case, the changed conditions of the people as between 1921, when the terms of reference to the tribunal were set up, and 1933, were taken into consideration?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, that is precisely the kind of thing which was taken into consideration, and I would remind the hon. Member that it is open to tenants to apply to a rents tribunal.

Mr. LOGAN: Thousands of houses in Liverpool have had this rent reduction, and will the right hon. Gentleman explain why Addison houses have been refused the reduction?

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: May I ask whether, in coming to a decision in this case, further information which is forwarded to his Department will be taken into account.

Sir H. YOUNG: All information which has reached the Department has been taken into account, and again I would remind the hon. Member that it is open to a tenant to apply to the rents tribunal.

TIMBER PRICES.

Mr. WHITE: 26 and 27.
asked the Minister of Health (1) if he has received any report from the inter-departmental committee on prices of building materials on the movement of the price of timber Since the embargo on imports of timber from Russia was imposed;
(2) what steps the Government propose to prevent a rise in the cost of building in this country as a result of the embargo on imports of Russian timber?

Mr. RICHARD EVANS: 28.
asked the Minister of Health the effect of the embargo on importations from Russia on the building industry in this country?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have not received a recent report from the committee mentioned, but the information available to
me does not suggest that there has been more than a very slight increase in the price of timber. I shall watch the course of prices.

Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on current prices this is equivalent to an increase in the cost of the smallest houses of £10; that stocks have been raised in value and that suppliers have also increased their prices?

Sir H. YOUNG: The information at my disposal does not tend to suggest that there has been so big a rise as the hon. Member mentioned.

Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the rise is? If there is a rise in the cost of building material, will he withdraw the embargo which is causing it?

Sir H. YOUNG: The rise has been very slight, but, if the hon. Member will put down a question, I will give him the exact figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Colonel GOODMAN: 31.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether before issuing orders under Section 7 (1) of the Import Duties Act, 1932, it is the intention of the commissioners to obtain the advice and assistance of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in connection with the discharge by the Treasury of their functions under the Act, as provided by Section 2 (1)?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): So far as concerns the functions of the Treasury under Section 7, the answer is in the negative. As regards the relations between the Advisory Committee and the Board of Trade, on whose recommendation the Treasury act under the Section, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would put a question to the President.

IMPORTED TIMBER (DUTY).

Brigadier-General NATION: 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received any recommendations from the Import Duties Advisory Committee as a result of representations made to them before 12th May by the Timber Trades Federation and the saw-
milling industry generally in regard to duties on imported timber?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certain recommendations have been received from the committee in regard to various wood goods; but I am unable to say whether these relate to the particular applications which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. I suggest that he should await the publication of the committee's recommendations.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any information as to the progress made in setting up an organization to limit the life of passenger and cargo vessels?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I understand that various proposals are under consideration by the shipping industry and if the hon. and gallant Member will let me know the particular scheme he has in mind, I will make inquiries.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chamber of Shipping set up a committee to discuss and consider this question of setting a limit to the life of shipping; and will he not consider the matter from that point of view?

Mr. STOREY: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Norway, Sweden, or Denmark place any restrictions upon their nationals building ships in the United Kingdom?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of any restriction placed by these Governments on the building by their nationals of sea-going merchant vessels in this country.

Mr. STOREY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether the subsidy given to shipbuilding by these countries was discussed during the recent trade negotiations?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I understand there are no subsidies given by these nations.

EGYPT (COTTON IMPORTS).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any information in
respect to the alteration of certain duties by Egypt; and, if so, will he give the details affecting cotton goods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the Egyptian duties on cotton yarns and certain cotton piece goods were modified by Decree of 14th May with immediate effect. I have not yet received full details of the modifications, but I am informed that there is an increase of 30 per cent. in the duties on fabrics of pure cotton weighing 140 to 180 grammes per square metre, unbleached, bleached, and dyed, and that there is a general increase averaging from 10 to 20 per cent. on cotton yarns.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend taking all available steps to ensure that the interests of this essential export trade are properly safeguarded?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As soon as I have the full details, I can certainly consider that.

TRADE AGREEMENTS (FISHING INDUSTRY).

Mr. BOOTHBY: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in any forthcoming negotiations for trade agreements with European countries the interests of the fishing industry will be taken into account?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir.

RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Russian ships are arriving in London with cargoes from Russia; how much these cargoes have comprised Since the imposition of the Russian embargo; and how much Russian cargo, if any, comes through Germany or other European countries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The proclamation issued under the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act does not cover every class of goods. Russian goods of the prohibited classes can be imported only under licence. The value of the goods covered by licences issued to date is approximately £71,000, of which goods to the value of approximately £46,000 were consigned from countries other than the Soviet Union.

Mr. R. EVANS: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the
rise in the cost of building materials, he will consider issuing licences for the importation of Russian timber?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not prepared to issue licences for the importation of sawn timber produced wholly in Russia, except where payment had been substantially made before the Proclamation under the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act was issued. Sawn, planed and dressed timber produced from Russian logs in countries other than the Soviet Union also falls within the scope of the prohibition. I find as a result of inquiry that considerably the greater part of the value of such goods represents costs incurred after the logs leave the Soviet Union, and that before the prohibition took effect payment to the Soviet Government for supplies of logs for the present season had either been made, or guaranteed on terms which would not be nullified by a refusal on our part to admit the goods produced from these logs. The exclusion of these goods would not, therefore, affect the Soviet Government. For these reasons it has been decided to license during the present season the importation of sawn, planed or dressed timber produced from material of Russian origin when accompanied by a Consular certificate to the effect that the material last left the Soviet Union in the form of logs. This decision is designed to apply only to logs for which contracts have already been made in connection with the present season's operations.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will my right hon. Friend consider the conditions under which this Russian Soviet timber is produced before he comes to a decision?

TIMBER SUPPLIES.

Mr. WHITE: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of stocks held in this country of European soft wood suitable for the requirements of the building trade as at the latest date available this year compared with the corresponding date in 1932?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that this information is not available.

WEST AFRICA (ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what
notice is required to enable the West African Colonies to withdraw from the Anglo-Japanese trading agreement?

The SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade informed my hon. Friend on the 16th instant, the period is 12 months. Notice was given on that day.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

IRISH CATTLE (IMPORTS).

Mr. LUNN: 33.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the value per head of live cattle imported into the United Kingdom from the Irish Free State in the week ended 13th May, 1933, in the following categories: live cattle under six months old; six months old, but under 15 months old; 15 months old, but under two years old; two years old and upwards, not being cattle known as mIncers; live sheep and live lambs; and other animals?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The particulars required could not be extracted from the statistics of imports generally without a disproportionate expenditure of labour.

Mr. LUNN: Then on what did the hon. Gentleman base his calculations when he made the statement to the House that this change made no difference in the return on the duty, from what it would have been for a 40 per cent. ad valorem duty?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is quite a different question. My hon. Friend has asked for particulars for one week. It would be very difficult to sort them out.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the Financial Secretary not give us the general facts which the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) desires, apart from the limitation of one week?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think it might be possible to give them for a longer period in the course of time if my hon. Friend will put down a further question, but it is not possible to extract the particulars for one week without great difficulty.

Mr. LUNN: If the hon. Gentleman has not this information, is it not then the fact that he misled the House the other night in his statement that there was no difference in result between the two forms of duty?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir, I should never mislead the House. The House was asked to approve an Order changing one procedure for another, and there is no appreciable difference, in the amount of the respective duties, as we are advised by the most competent experts on the subject.

Mr. SPEAKER: Lieut.-Colonel Heneage.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask a further question? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House granted that concession very readily on his statement that it was merely a technical change, and that up to now he has not given us, in reply to questions, any reason to believe that it is purely a technical change?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think there must be some misapprehension. The House of Commons was invited to approve an Order which changed ad valorem duties into specific duties. I gave the reasons why that change was to be made. Before we proposed to make that change we took advice from those competent to express an opinion upon the subject, and I am advised that the duties are, roughly, on an equality.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Are hon. Members entitled to continue discussing this matter when you have already called the next question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must allow me to exercise my discretion.

MUSK RATS (PREVENTIVE MEASURES).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture which are the catchment areas in which the musk rat has been found; and whether the catchment area authorities or the internal drainage boards are responsible for instituting preventive measures?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): The presence of musk rats at large has been established in three catchment areas, namely, the Severn, the Aran, and the Thames above Teddington Lock, and local authorities are collaborat-
ing with the Ministry in the trapping operations which are in progress there. While there is no specific statutory obligation on catchment and internal drainage boards to take preventive measures in respect of musk rats, both sets of authorities are obviously concerned to do all they can to protect their systems from possible damage, and to this end they have been advised by the Ministry what action to take if the presence of musk rats is detected. I may perhaps add that last year a musk rate was killed in the Great Ouse area and one in the Medway area, but there have been no subsequent reports of musk rats in either of these areas.

IMPORTED STRAWBERRIES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the effect upon the profits of British strawberry growers of the removal of the tariff on imported straw berries at the end of June last year, he proposes to take any steps in respect of this season to ensure that the tariffs are maintained for a sufficient period to remove damaging competition from foreign sources?

Major ELLIOT: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Additional Import Duties (No. 5) Order, 1932, which is at present operative, provides that a duty of 3d. per lb. shall be chargeable on imported foreign strawberries between 1st April and 31st July.

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now make any further statement with regard to the action which he proposes to take to provide more adequate credit facilities at low rates of interest for British farmers?

Major ELLIOT: The policy of the Government is to do its utmost to raise the general prosperity of the agricultural industry and thus to improve the credit position of farmers. It is not, however, proposed as part of this policy to set up any State-aided system of credit facilities for individual producers.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many farmers who have accepted advances under the credit scheme have had their credit very much
restricted—that is, the credit which they had previously obtained from their suppliers—owing to lack of confidence in this scheme?

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that several of the banks are making it very difficult for farmers to obtain loans under the existing Act; and does he think that the Act is being properly carried out?

Mr. B00THBY: Does not my right hon. Friend think it more important to secure for the farmers prices which will enable them to make a living than credit facilities which will get them further into debt?

FRENCH FLOUR (IMPORTS).

Mrs. RUNGE: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the heavy importations of French flour into this country; if he will inquire to what extent the low price obtained is due to the rebate given to the French millers against their imports of foreign wheat; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the competition in our market of this indirectly subsidised foreign flour?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that imports of French flour have increased in recent months. The scheme under which French exporters of flour obtained a rebate of import duty expired on 31st July, 1930, and the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

LINCOLNSHIRE (CATCHMENT AREA).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the present situation of the scheme under which a catchment area is proposed to be set up on the east coast of LinColn shire?

Major ELLIOT: I am still in communication with the Lindsey County Council as to the extent of the proposed catchment area referred to.

TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Mr. SPENS: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that investigations are being made by representatives of Queen Anne's Bounty into the personal ability of tithe payers to
pay tithe out of their general resources and that concessions are being made only on proof of individual inability to pay; and whether, as tithe is not a personal libility, he will take steps to secure that such investigations shall be confined to and concessions made on the basis of the possibility of making the cultivation of the land pay?

Major ELLIOT: I have no jurisdiction as regards the collection of tithe rent-charge and my hon. and learned Friend will thus see that I am not in a position, therefore, to control any investigation which Queen Anne's Bounty may see fit to make before making a voluntary concession to a landowner with respect to tithe rentcharge.

CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE (PAINTING).

Marquess of HARTINGTON: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the contract for the 1930 painting of Carlton House Terrace was submitted to any meeting of the Crown Estates Paving Commissioners; why there is no record of such submission in their minutes; and what guarantee they had of the contractors' ability to meet the penalty clauses for unsatisfactory work attached to such contracts?

Major ELLIOT: The tenders for the 1930 painting were opened at a meeting of the Crown Estate Paving Commissioners held on 15th July, 1930, and the selected tender was accepted at that meeting, as recorded in the minutes. A satisfactory banker's reference was obtained as to the contractors' financial stability.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this firm of contractors is Capttalised at £500 only; and does he consider that this was a satisfactory firm?

Major ELLIOT: We got a satisfactory reference before the contract was awarded.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman got any satisfactory results?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture why a quantity surveyor was employed for the 1930 exterior painting of Carlton House
Terrace; on what grounds this expense was incurred, having regard to the fact that every relevant measurement had been made previously and must have been on record; and whether this charge will be refunded to the tenants who have been compelled to pay it?

Major ELLIOT: The quantity surveyor who was responsible for the quantities for previous contracts died in 1929, and as it was found that the data available were not satisfactory the Crown Estate Paving Commissioners considered it prudent to have a fresh bill of quantities prepared for the 1930 painting. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: In what way has Carlton House Terrace changed Since the last painting in 1930?

Major ELLIOT: I am simply saying that the data available were not satisfactory.

CIVIL AVIATION.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance to the House that the Government will not accept the effective control of civil aviation under any conditions without consulting this House?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The policy of His Majesty's Government is set forth in Annex II of the Air Armaments Chapter of the Draft Disarmament Convention, which was submitted by the United Kingdom Delegation to the Disarmament Conference on 16th March, 1933, and which has been presented to Parliament in the form of a White Paper. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Will my right hon. Friend discriminate between civil and military aviation?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend will see that the discrimination is there in different sections of the document.

Mr. PERKINS: May I ask that nothing shall be done without first consulting this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: It will be handled in the usual way.

Mr. EVERARD: Is it not part of the British, plan before the Disarmament Conference that civil aviation shall be controlled?

The PRIME MINISTER: The control of civil aviation is under consideration. The British delegation has even made the conditions under which that scheme can be talked about, and those conditions are set forth in the Paper.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the British Empire the most suited for civil aviation, and is it not a pity that it should be restricted?

WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION).

Mr. LEVY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he can state the constitution of the British delegation to the World Economic Conference; and whether the Conference will sit continuously until it has completed its work or adjourn, if its task is incomplete, to enable delegates to attend the League Assembly in September?

The PRIME MINISTER: The composition of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Monetary and Economic Conference will be as follows:

The Prime Minister.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Secretary of State for War.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies.
The President of the Board of Trade.
The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
As President of the Conference, I shall be unable to attend regularly the meetings of the United Kingdom Delegation and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, therefore, act as Leader of the Delegation. As regards the second part of the question, this, of course, is for the Conference itself to decide.

Mr. LEVY: Will this House have an opportunity of considering the British case, which I understand the sub-Committee of the Cabinet is said to be preparing, before it is submitted to the Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: That was dealt with in the course of the Debate in the House.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the preoccupations that prevent him from attending the meetings of the Delegation while permitting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so?

The PRIME MINISTER: The preoccupations which would prevent me from attending to the details of the British Delegation's work are the Chairmanship of the Conference and the tremendous amount of control that has to be exercised.

Mr. LEVY: Will my right hon. Friend answer my question?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a statement which would declare the main points of the policy which the British Government are going to put forward at the Economic Conference?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

Mr. HALL-CALNE: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the complaints by British commercial interests that they were not consulted in the conclusion of the recent trade agreements and in order to avoid similar complaints in connection with the proceedings at the World Economic Conference, he will undertake that if and when commercial interests are discussed those industries affected shall he consulted at an early stage of the discussions?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is expected that the discussions at the Conference will turn mainly on broad questions of economic policy, and it is not possible to give an undertaking that there will be consultation with particular trade interests on every question which may affect them. His Majesty's Government intend, however, to make such arrangements as will enable them to keep in close touch with industrial and commercial opinion.

Mr. PIKE: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the estimated cost of the arrangement of accommodartion for the World Economic Conference now being carried out at the Geological
Museum by his Department; and whether the total expenditure is to fall upon Great Britain?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): His Majesty's Government are only bEarlng the extra cost of holding the Conference in London instead of at Geneva. An estimate for this purpose of £18,500 has been included in the Foreign Office Vote for 1933–34 and the cost of adapting the new Geological Museum building for the Monetary and Economic Conference is estimated at £7,500.

Mr. PIKE: In view of the fact that it is estimated that all nations represented at the World Economic Conference will derive some benefit as a result of the deliberations, is there any reason why Great Britain should bear the whole of this cost?

Sir J. SIMON: I have already explained that this country does not bear the whole of the cost, but it is bEarlng the extra cost over what would have been incurred if the conference had been held in Geneva. It is in the interests of this country and to the satisfaction of most citizens of the country that the conference should be held here.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MARR COLLEGE.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now state the position in regard to the Marr Trust or give an indication as to when the Marr College will be available to students?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend has carefully investigated the question as to whether the Marr College could be opened under some provisional arrangement pending its permanent establishment under an approved scheme for the future regulation of the whole endowment; but he finds that that is impracticable. I cannot say when the college will be available for students; but every effort is being made to press forward a final settlement.

SMALLHOLDINGS (RENT).

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Scot-
land whether in view of the fall in agricultural prices in the last three years, he will consider introducing legislation to amend temporarily the seven years' rule so as to enable smallholders to apply for a revision of rent in all cases where the rents have not been revised Since 1929?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I am not prepared to introduce legislation on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. STEWART: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that in the case of many of these smallholders, unless legislation is introduced to reduce their liabilities, they may be forced to vacate their holdings, and does he think that that would be to the advantage of the State?

Sir G. COLLINS: No such information has reached me.

BRACKEN.

Mr. H. STEWART: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that many sheep farms in the centre of Scotland are so overrun with bracken that no tenants will take them; that on many other farms bracken now covers one-third of the grazing land; and whether, as the tenants cannot deal with the matter alone, he will consider making special provision whereby the tenants, the landowners and the State may cooperate in reducing this danger to food production?

Sir G. COLLINS: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of the 9th instant. I have no definite information with regard to the first two parts of the question, but I am aware that this plant is, in places, a serious nuisance. With regard to the last part, experiments have been in progress for some time to discover improved methods of eradication. While that is so, however, I would suggest that the matter is primarily one in which landlords and tenants should co-operate in their own interests. Under present conditions, I am not in a position to offer financial assistance by the State.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Do I understand that my right hon. Friend does not intend to eliminate bracken?

OATS.

Mr. BOOTHBY asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now state what is the Government's policy with regard to oats?: 57.

Sir G. COLLINS: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the Import Duties Advisory Committee has under consideration an application for an increased duty on oats and oat products imported from foreign countries, and has invited representations to be made to it by parties interested. Pending the recommendation of that committee, I cannot make any statement on the question of policy.

Mr. BOOTHBY: In view of the fact that this is a, matter of vital importance to Scottish agriculture and that the Government have had well over a year to consider it, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government might reach a conclusion apart from the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

Sir G. COLLINS: The Import Duties Advisory Committee was set up for the express purpose of considering these matters, and until it has reported I am unable to deal with the matter.

GERMANY: BRITISH PRISONERS (RELEASE).

Mr. COCKS: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information regarding the case of Mr. Geoffrey Fraser?

Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin mentioned the case of Mr. Fraser persoNaily to Herr Hitler on 11th May, and on 13th May the German Foreign Minister addressed to Sir Horace Rumbold a note stating that it had been decided not to continue any further the proceedings against Mr. Fraser, who was being released that day; but that as he was still under grave suspicion of having committed an offence under paragraph 3 of a Presidential decree of 21st March last he had been ordered to leave Germany.

Mr. COCKS: As this British subject has been in prison without trial for six weeks, will the British Government consider demanding compensation for the material loss and the mental anguish which he has undergone?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not know what mental anguish the hon. Member refers to.

Mr. COCKS: Would not the right hon. Gentleman suffer mental anguish if he were locked up in a prison in Berlin for six weeks with the possibility of a Hitlerite coming at any time of the day or night?

Mr. HICKS (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES): 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the nature of the explanations given by the German Government to the five British subjects recently arrested and released; what further steps are being taken in the case of Mr. Mann, arrested and released without explanation; whether compensation has been demanded for wrongful arrest in these cases; and whether any further arrests of British subjects have occurred in Germany Since?

Sir J. SIMON: Since the date of the reply given to the hon. Member on the 3rd of May, all the British subjects under detention in Germany have been released. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement regarding these cases. In the case of Mr. Mann I have nothing to add to the replies given on the 27th of April and the 1st of May to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). The replies to the third and fourth parts of this question are in the negative.

Mr. HICKS: Has there been any attempt made to claim compensation for those who have been wrongly arrested?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir; I would like to say that naturally that question is considered with sympathy, but we must remember that if a man has been arrested under the due process of law and has been released, those facts themselves would not justify a claim by one Government for compensation against another.

Following is the statement:

Mr. Tendulkar.—The German Minister for Foreign Affairs informed His Majesty's Ambassador that the competent German authorities had satisfied themselves that he had been closely con-
nected with the German Communist party, and that he had therefore been ordered to leave the country.

Mr. Catchpool.—The German Minister for Foreign Affairs informed His Majesty's Ambassador that he had been arrested "for spreading untrue information," but, as stated in reply to the hon. Member for Broxtowe on 10th April, he was released on the day following his arrest.

Messrs. Jowitt and Casson.—These members of the Halifax Hockey Club were detained for one day at Emmerich on a charge of insulting behaviour of a political nature (misuse of Nazi emblems). They were released after His Majesty's Consul-General at Cologne had communicated with the local authorities.

Mr. Tagore.—The explanation given by the Bavarian authorities to His Majesty's Consul-General at Munich for Mr. Tagore's arrest was stated in reply to the hon. Member for Broxtowe on 1st May. His Majesty's Consul-General was subsequently informed by the Bavarian authorities that the suspicions on which Mr. Tagore had been detained had proved upon closer examination to be unfounded and that he was therefore released at the earliest possible moment. As Mr. Tagore left immediately for Paris and did not communicate with His Majesty's Consul-General, the latter was unable to give any information as to the reasons for his arrest or the circumstances in which it took place beyond that furnished to him by the Bavarian authorities.

Mr. Gupta.—The police authorities in Berlin informed His Majesty's Consul that Mr. Gupta had been arrested on suspicion of activities detrimental to the State, and, subsequently, that although they considered that he had been engaged in Communistic activities, it had been decided not to prefer a charge against him, more particularly as he had undertaken to leave the country. He was in fact deported to England.

Mr. Howard was sentenced to four weeks' imprisonment for libelling German Post Office officials. As Mr. Howard accepted this sentence no further action is called for.

Mr. Fraser's case is dealt with in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Broxtowe on to-day's Order Paper.

HOME OFFICE INDUSTRIAL MUSEUM.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether the figure of £3,381, which represents the average annual cost of the maintenance of the building of the Home Office Industrial Museum covers the total cost of this museum to the taxpayers, or whether there are any other expenses, such as ground rent, salaries, or other charges which are borne by public funds?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that the £3,381 covers the whole cost to the Exchequer of maintaining this museum, including wages of museum staff but not including ground rent, and leaving out of account the proportion of their time spent by factory inspectors and other Government officials on the general administration of the museum. I understand it has been found contrary to public interest to disclose amounts of rent paid by the Office of Works in individual instances.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXCHEQUER GRANTS).

Mrs. TATE: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether the whole sum of £5,000,000 of additional Exchequer money provided for under the Local Government Act of 1929 as a margin for the development of total services has been allocated for the first grant period; and, if so, for what purposes the money has been approved?

Sir H. YOUNG: The £5,000,000 additional Exchequer money referred to formed part of the Annual General Exchequer Contribution under the Local Government Act, 1929, for the first fixed grant period of three years beginning op 1st April, 1930. This General Exchequer Contribution has been distributed among local authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The share of each local local authority is applicable in aid of local government expenses generally, and no portion can be regarded as being assigned to any specific service.

COST OF LIVING.

Mr. HANNON: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether figures are available showing the drop in the cost of living of industrial wage-earners in this country, the United States, France, and Germany from the close of the year 1929 till the latest convenient date in the present

The following Table gives the official index numbers relating to (a) working-class cost of living, and (b) working-class rents, in these four countries, at or near the end of December, 1929, and at the most recent date for which figures are available, together with the percentage changes shown by these figures. It should be noted, as regards any comparisons which may be made of the figures for the different countries, that the index numbers are based in each case on prices and rents as expressed in the currencies of the countries concerned at the dates to which the figures relate.

Country.
Cost of Living (1913 or 1914=100).
Bents* (1913 or 1914=100).
Percentage decrease (-) or increase (+)Since end of 1929.


At or near end of 1929.†
At latest date available.‡
At or near end of 1929.†
At latest date available.‡
Cost of Living.
Rents.*


Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
166
136
152
155
- 18.1
+ 2.0


United States of America
171.4
132.1
151.9
118.0
- 22.9
- 22.3


France (Paris)
565
523
350
375
- 7.4
+ 7.1


Germany
152.6
116.6
126.7
121.3
- 23.6
- 4.3


* The figures for rents for Great Britain include local rates; it is not known to what extent local taxation is included in the figures on which the index numbers for other countries are based.


† Great Britain. 1st January, 1930: U.S.A., December, 1929: France (Paris), 4th quarter of 1929: Germany, December, 1929.


‡ Great Britain, 1st May, 1933: U.S.A., December, 1932: France (Paris), 1st quarter of 1933, for cost of living, and 4th quarter of 1932, for rents: Germany, March, 1933.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD.

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to make any announcement as to the appointment of the London Passenger Transport Board?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Yes, Sir. At a meeting of the Appointing Trustees this morning the following appointments were made:
Lord Ashfield (to be Chairman) for a term of seven years.
Mr. Frank Pick, at present Managing Director of the Underground Group of Companies, to be a whole-time member for a term of seven years.
Mr. John Cliff, at present Assistant General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and Mr. Patrick Ashley Cooper, a Director of the Bank of England, and Governor of the

year; and whether figures are available showing the percentage reduction in the rent of houses during the same period in this and the other countries named?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply involves a statistical table, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Hudson Bay Company, to be part-time members for a term of five years.

Sir John William Gilbert, an Alderman of the London County Council, Sir Edward Holland, an Alderman of the Surrey County Council, and Sir Henry Maybury, at present Chairman of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, to be part-time members for a term of three years.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether, in view of the great public interest taken in this question, he will supplement it by stating the terms and conditions of employment under which these gentlemen have been appointed?

Mr. STANLEY: I cannot give those particulars in answer to a Supplementary Question on a Private Notice Question, but, if my hon. Friend will put down a question on the Paper, I will give him the fullest information.

Mr. PARKINSON: Can the hon. Gentleman state the exact terms as to the salaries which have been agreed to?

Mr. STANLEY: I have said, in reply to my hon. Friend, that if a question is put on the Paper, I will give the fullest details.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business is to be for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Committee stage of a Ways and Means Resolution relating to Co-operative and other trading bodies.
Tuesday: Second Reading of the Metropolitan Police Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Wednesday and Thursday: Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
The Government business to be taken on Friday will be announced later.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not reconsider the business for Tuesday? The Metropolitan Police Bill was only available yesterday, I think, and there is very little time for its consideration. Very considerable public interest has been aroused by the Report of the Commissioner and the White Paper which was published, and seeing that there is that public interest, will he not allow another week's consideration of the Bill before we are called upon to discuss it, seeing that there really cannot be any very great urgency for the Bill—no urgency at all, in fact? A further point is that the Opposition would very much like a Supply Day next week in order to raise very urgent questions connected with foreign affairs. That being the case, we should like him, if he will, to make Tuesday a Supply Day instead of putting down the Metropolitan Police Bill for that day.

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the Metropolitan Police Bill, it is very desirable that it should have a Second Reading soon. The White Paper explaining the scheme has been in the hands of Members for some time The Bill itself was issued last night, I think. I am not
sure whether it was in the hands of Members last night, but it was issued last night, and was certainly in the hands of Members this morning. The Second Reading will be the opportunity for a Debate upon the general principles of the scheme—upon the scheme as a scheme; details will come up when the Committee stage is reached. We think it is very desirable, before there is any chance of misunderstandings and that sort of thing spreading, that the Government should be able to explain to the House what the Bill is and meet the opposition to the Bill on the Second Reading. Therefore, I think I must adhere to Tuesday for the Metropolitan Police Bill. As regards a discussion on Foreign Affairs, I do not know whether that, might be considered through the usual channels. It is very desirable that we should have the Committee stage of the Finance Bill as quickly as possible.

Mr. LANSBURY: But there really is no hurry about the Finance Bill. There is plenty of time for it. The right hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. We are extremely anxious to discuss disarmament and also the question that was raised at Question Time concerning the World Economic Conference. We certainly are not going to agree—the Majority may, but we certainly are not— that that Conference should be entered upon by His Majesty's Government without the House having an opportunity of discussing in a more concrete form what it is the Government are going to put before that Conference. As to the Metropolitan Police Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has made my point. He says it is desirable to get the Second Reading through before there is time for discussion out in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, the point the right hon. Gentleman made was that we should take it before there could be further discussion or misunderstandings. We think that the public ought to have a longer opportunity of thinking about this revolution in police procedure, and be able to communicate to their Members in this House what their views are on the subject. I know that we are a very small Opposition, and the Government have got into the habit of bringing Bills forward and just pushing them through with very little time indeed. The Russian Embargo Bill was a case in point, and so
was the Exchange Equalisation Account Bill. Now we get this Bill, for which there is not the least hurry at all. No one can say there is any hurry for this Bill except those who want to prevent public discussion.

The PRIME MINISTER: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say in the country, I hope that in the House of Commons he will quote me accurately, both as regards my words and also what is in my mind.

Mr. LANSBURY: I cannot know what is in your mind.

The PRIME MINISTER: I stated quite specifically that a White Paper setting forth the scheme has been in the hands of Members of the House and before the country as a whole for some little time, and that I think it is very desirable, if the country is going to discuss the matter further, that a Debate should take place in this House without delay. The Second Reading Debate on a Bill does not dispose of it. The Debate will enable the Government to meet the criticism of those who are opposed to the Bill, and in the public interest, and in the interests of this House, the sooner that Debate takes place, within reason—and surely the reason is established—the better. Therefore, we have decided that Tuesday shall be the day when the Second Reading of the Bill is to be debated.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have no intention of prolonging this matter, because obviously the right hon. Gentleman has it in his power to say to the Opposition, "This shall be done," and there is an end of it. We have made our protest against it. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the right hon. Gentleman on one point. I shall never be guilty of saying in the country anything about him or what he says that I will not say here straight across the Table.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the Prime Minister if he proposes that the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution dealing with proposals for taxation of co-operatives is to be completed in one day?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; it is the Financial Resolution.

Mr. MAXTON: But I am just a little unclear about what the procedure will be. The method by which this taxation is to be imposed is somewhat unusual. I want to secure that the House of Commons shall have a very full opportunity of discussing the whole question. There is very general interest in it in all parts of the House, and I am quite sure that opinion on it is not running purely on party lines, and, if this Committee stage is the effective stage in the application of the tax, then I would urge that some longer time than one day be given to it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understood from the Patronage Secretary that we were to have one clear day now and that when the Financial Resolution is added to the Bill he would arrange that there was another clear day for that Resolution, and we would like to have that confirmed.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that my hon. Friend may have forgotten for a moment that a Financial Resolution is a preparation put forward either for a Clause or for a Bill, in this case for a Clause which cannot be added to the Finance Bill until the Financial Resolution has gone through its two stages, which will give a further day for discussion of this subject.

Mr. MAXTON: That is not what I have forgotten. What I want to provide for, if I can, is that the effective Debate on this subject shall have taken place before the House gives a decision which settles the matter for good and all. When the Financial Resolution is passed, the effective decisions have been taken. Surely it cannot matter to the Government from the point of view of time, if they are prepared to give two days, whether the two days are given on the Financial Resolution or on the subsequent Clause that is inserted in the Finance Bill. Therefore, I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether the Patronage Secretary cannot arrange that we should have two days on the Financial Resolution rather than one day then and another day later on.

The PRIME MINISTER: Clearly, from the point of view of business, it is quite impossible to give two days to the Financial Resolution and then to have the Clause passed on a subsequent day. The Debate on the Clause, when it comes before the Committee, will be just as effective as the Debate on the Financial
Resolution. Do believe me that it is purely a matter of House of Commons procedure. The Division, which will take place upon whether the Clause, whatever number it is, shall stand part of the Bill, will be just as effective, and there will be just as healthy an attitude, as in the Division on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to ensure that we take a Division before the Clause is introduced.

Mr. ROBINSON: Can the Prime Minister give any indication of when the House will have an opportunity of discussing the new trade agreements with Norway and Sweden?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot give that information without notice of the question.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, may, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS BILL.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: On the question of the business for to-morrow, hon. Members are aware that what is known as the Hotels and Restaurants Bill has been in Committee, having received a Second Reading in this House. By the Votes and Proceedings this morning, we are informed that that Bill is to be put down for its Report and Third Reading stages to-morrow. There is also, in the Votes and Proceedings, upon pages 1514 to 1515, a whole page of new Clauses in the name of the Solicitor-General. The Bill is one of much interest to many hon. Members, but it is not yet available to Members. Until the Bill is received from the Committee, we cannot possibly devise the Amendments about which we are concerned, and in those circumstances, and having regard to the new Clauses now being suggested to a Bill which is not available to the Members of this House—[Interruption.]—I am also given to understand that they are new Clauses that have received no consideration in the Committee upstairs. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not true."] That is what I am informed. I want to ask the
Prime Minister what protection can be afforded to Members of the House who are interested in those Clauses, and who are anxious that they shall be discussed.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I might pass that question to you, if you have no objection.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to speak on the point made by the hon. Gentleman?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I only wanted to give the ordinary procedure.

Mr. SPEAKER: A question has been raised in regard to the Hotels and Restaurants Bill. I understand that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) wishes to know about it. I understand that the Bill passed its Committee stage yesterday afternoon, and that it will be printed, in its amended form, directly after 4 o'clock to-day. With regard to it being on the Paper tomorrow, the hon. Gentleman will remember that to-morrow is the last private Members' day of the Session, and, of course, if he wishes to adjourn consideration of the Bill, he will have an opportunity to move that to-morrow, when the Bill comes up for consideration.

Mr. FOOT: I will avail myself of that opportunity to-morrow.

TROUT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Exchange Equalisation Account Bill.

London and North Eastern Railway

Bill, without Amendment.

Great Western Railway Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1925; to make further provision with regard to the properties and endowments of the Church of Scotland; and for purposes connected therewith." [Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the provisions of the Government of India Act relating to the extension of the duration of a Governor's Legislative Council." [Government of India (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision in regard to the road transport, gas and water undertakings of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Wigan, and in regard to the health, local government, and improvement of that borough; to provide for the revision of the terms upon which the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses shall receive and dispose of the sewage from certain areas adjacent to the said borough; to provide for the application of the balance of certain moneys subscribed during the Great War for purposes connected with that War; and for other purposes." [Wigan Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the city of Canterbury and county of the same city; and for purposes incidental thereto." [Canterbury Extension Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate (with amendments) the special Acts and the Orders relating to the East Hull Gas Company; to make new provisions as to the charges for the gas supplied by and the application of the profits of the Company to authorise the Company to raise further Capttal; and for other purposes." [East Hull Gas Bill [Lords.]

WIGAN COEPOEATION BILL [Lords.]

CANTERBUEY EXTENSION BILL [Lords.]

EAST HULL GAS BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1933.

CLASS V.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,593,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Removal of Workers and their Dependants; Grants for assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."—[Note.—£31,000,000 has been voted on account.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the Minister to make his speech, I think that I ought to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that on the face of this Estimate it is stated that provision is made for certain services until 30th June only, that to continue these services later legislation will be necessary and, therefore, in accordance with the well-known rule in Committee of Supply, the Debate so far as these particular services are concerned, will be limited to their present administration by the Ministry of Labour. The proper occasion to raise future administration will be when the Bill foreshadowed by the Minister is introduced in the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the importance of what is to happen on 30th June, might I ask whether there will be another discussion on that occasion? Seeing that your predecessor took the view that when it was the unanimous wish of the House there could be a general discussion on the principles arising in a matter of this kind, could not these matters be discussed to-day, in
view of their importance and of the necessity of some discussion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we must abide by the Rule that legislation must not be raised. I think that the hon. Gentleman is an ingenious enough Parliamentarian to be able to make his points without infringing that Rule.

3.59 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): The convenient procedure of this House enables a Minister, when his Estimates are called for, to take the opportunity of making something like a general survey of the work of his Department during the past year. As you have already intimated, Sir, that would preclude discussion of anything which involves legislative action; on the other hand, it opens the door to a discussion of the administration of the Department in every aspect. When these Estimates were called for, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. Gentleman who, I believe, is to follow me in this Debate, intimated that it was their desire that I should take the opportunity of making a general statement as to what we have been doing during the past year. I very gladly avail myself of that opportunity, and will endeavour to give an account of what we have been doing during the last year.
The first observation I want to make—and I think the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who has been in my Department, will agree with me—is that too often the work of the Ministry of Labour is identified in the public mind solely with the payment of benefit or the payment of relief, and too often is it thought by the public outside, though not by those who know the work, that we are concerned entirely with the administration of either the one-or the other. I, myself, feel that in these days of world-wide depression, such as we are now going through, there never was a time when it was more necessary that special attention should be given to what I may call the constructive work of the Ministry itself. Let me remind the Committee of the change that has come over the problem with which we have to deal during the last four or five years. Four years ago the numbers on the register were not much over 1,000,000. In two years they
went up to 2,500,000, and they have fluctuated rather above that figure ever Since. Let me remind the Committee what that means. During the last few years there have been brought within the ambit of our register men who never before, perhaps, had been out of work at all. For the first time, owing to the depression, they have come on to the register. That is the first observation I have to make.
The second observation is that, as this depression has continued, we are finding, as was inevitable, that the numbers of those who are on the register for a considerable period tend to increase, and, therefore, in considering what action we ought to take, we have to bear both these facts in mind. It is for these reasons that I, myself, attach the great importance I do to training and reconditioning, because if it be true, as it is, that men are coming on to the register for the first time after a long period of activity, it is, in all probability, also true to say that they may reasonably expect to be the first to be absorbed when industry recovers. Therefore, it is more than ever necessary that the State should do what it can to keep them in a condition of physical fitness that is within the powers and limits of the State's opportunities as will enable them to take advantage of re-absorption into industry when they get the chance.
In a moment or two I am going to deal in more detail with this question of training and reconditioning, but before doing so I will quote one or two figures which the Committee will expect me to give. Let me assure the Committee that these figures have certain encouraging features, but do not let it be said or thought for a moment that I quote the figures in any spirit of complacency, because no one who occupies my position, and no Member of this House, can regard otherwise than with anxiety the tremendous aggregate of unemployment which there now is, and I do beg the Committee not to misunderstand me on that point. There is another thing I want to say, and I do not want to be misunderstood on this matter, either. Although there are indications, as I am going to show, which give signs of encouragement, I am only too well aware that there are, up and down the country, for instance in
Durham—I see the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street here—in parts of South Wales and in other parts of the country districts where the aggregate of unemployment has reached perfectly appalling figures. Therefore, I say, do not let me be misunderstood on that point, because I realise the tragedy which underlies that picture.
I have before me the figures for the first quarter of each of the last five years. Those figures show that this is the only year in the last five years in which there has been a continuous decrease in the figures in each month during the first quarter. The next thing they show is that during the first quarter of this year the numbers have gone down by 200,000, or thereabouts—a total only equalled by 1929, which was a comparatively long time ago and was a year of comparatively good trade. Take another comparison, that is, from April to April in each case. I take April because the figures relating to that month are the last. The increase this year as compared with last April is the comparatively small one of 45,000. The increase from April, 1931, to April, 1932, was 132,000; from April, 1930, to April, 1931, 822,000; and from April, 1929, to April, 1930, 557,000. That shows, of course, that the increase has been checked to a very large extent. But the most significant figures, to which I, persoNaily, attach more importance than to the numbers of those not employed, are the numbers of those employed. There are 91,000 more in employment than there were a month before, and 92,000 more than there were a year ago. But, compared with January, that is, taking the comparable quarter, the numbers of those in employment show an increase of very nearly a quarter of a million, namely, 249,000. I say that that justifies me in thinking that those figures give some cause for encouragement. It means that in this year under review, when the trade of the whole world has been paralysed by exchange restrictions, when it has been disturbed by political uncertainties and harassed by monetary crises in every country, our position is not, only incomparably stronger than it was a year ago, but I think the outlook is more encouraging than it has been for a long time past.
The next thing I want to say—and I do not think, again, there will be any disagreement in any part of the Committee, but it is a point which, I think, ought to be made, and certainly ought to be made by the Minister of Labour. In this country, as in most other countries, as our predecessors found, as the occupant of my office found, the Government cannot, except to a limited degree, provide employment. Employment must depend upon the confidence, the co-operation and the enterprise of those engaged in industry. The main purpose of the Government should be to produce conditions in which industry can develop, and when you ask, therefore, what is the Government's employment policy, the answer is exactly the answer which would have been given by our predecessors and by every previous Government. The Government's employment policy, therefore, is to be found—you may criticise it or not as you like—in its financial policy, its trade policy, its foreign policy and its agricultural policy, and they are the responsibility of the Cabinet as a whole.
What are the special responsibilities and the special duties of the Minister of Labour? The responsibility of the Minister of Labour, it seems to me, is to help to maintain, if he can, satisfactory relations between employers and employed, and it is his duty, of course, within the means at his disposal, to do what he can for the unemployed themselves. That is what I have tried to do during the last year, as I will show. The importance of the figures of the register published every month is not so much the actual figures as the significance of those figures. The actual figures given each month may be influenced, to a very large extent, by purely accidental causes. If you had, for instance a very hard frost, with the result that building operations were stopped for a week, it might mean an increase of thousands on the register. You might even have a pouring wet day which prevented outside work in some industries, and that would have the same result. It would not necessarily indicate a worse industrial situation.
What we have to consider is the significance of the movement which seems to have been taking place during the last few months. There has been improvement in certain directions in respect of which I will give figures. There has been,
undoubtedly, a marked improvement in building. I hope very much that that is not entirely seasonal. There has been improvement in some trades which clearly are seasonal, such as hotels, and there has been some improvement in the clothing, millinery and dressmaking trades. It is satisfactory to note that there are signs of improvement, slight though they be at present, in iron and steel and in general engineering. I will give some of the figures. As compared with January last, there has been a diminution of those unemployed in the building trade of no less than 124,000. There has been an improvement in the tailoring trade of 26,000. There has, however, been a worsening during the last 12 months in the cotton industry which is deeply regrettable. There are 21,000 more unemployed in the cotton industry than there were in January. On the other hand, if you go back 18 months, to September, 1931, there are 107,000 more employed than there were at that time. The diminution of employment during the last three or four months is extremely disquieting. In the clothing trades including tailoring which I have already mentioned there has been an improvement of 44,000 within the four months, and there is an improvement, which is very satisfactory, in general engineering. It is not very large, but still I hope it is not without significance. It amounts to 13,000, and there is an improvement to the extent of 5,000 persons engaged in shipbuilding.
Coming to the coal mining industry, I am sorry to say that during the last four months the number of those unemployed in that industry has gone up by nearly 60,000—about 49,000. It is for that reason that I am glad that the agreements which are being negotiated abroad have paid, and are paying, considerable attention to the coal mining industry, and I can only hope, as I am sure every Member of the Committee will hope, that their results may be reflected later on in an improvement in these figures. This country is, of course, the very centre of the commercial system of the world, and it would be very foolish for anybody to prophesy as to what the commercial conditions of the world are going to be in the immediate future; but this much is certain, that international trade is based on international confidence, and
the Committee can judge just as well as I can how far international confidence exists at the present time.
There is another factor, which is within our own control. Because we hold our share, and more than our share, of a diminishing world trade, it would, it appears to me, be the height of folly to regard that fact with complacency, because, when the world begins to recover, our industries here, beyond all doubt, will be subjected to tremendous competition from without, and, although we have given comparative protection to some of the industries in our own country, and they are also protected by the depreciation of sterling, it would be most unwise for anybody to regard the trend of world trade with complacency.
Turning to the problem as it immediately affects the Ministry of Labour, and looking at it for a moment from my own angle, what I see is this: There are in this country about 12,000,000 insured persons. As regards 7,000,000 of the 12,000,000, even now, their employment is practically continuous. That leaves about 5,000,000, and, of those 5,000,000, about 2,000,000 only experience a brief period of unemployment throughout the year. With respect to a further 1,000,000, the interruption is less than a quarter of the year. I do not, as I have said, minimise the significance of the fact that the tendency is for the number of those who have longer periods of unemployment to increase. That is a fact which we cannot ovErieok and which we must bear carefully in mind. In this year of very serious financial stringency, when the House and the country, quite rightly scrutinise every shilling which the Government propose to spend, and when the demand for a reduction in all forms of public expenditure is most persistent, I have not hesitated to come to the House and ask for a sum of no less than £600,000 for the training of young unemployed men and for approved courses of instruction for unemployed youths. That represents an increase of something like £120,000 over last year. The Committee, of course, will want to know how this demand is justified, and how the money is spent, and I will give a short account of the way in which it is spent.
In the first place, we have eight training centres, where men receive six
months' training in some skilled craft; and, in spite of all the difficulties with which we are confronted, the percentage of those for whom we manage to get places from these training centres still remains pretty high—in fact, very high. In addition to that, we have at present 10 instructional centres, or what we call reconditioning centres, where men go for a course of 12 weeks; and I repeat that the reason why I attach so much importance to these reconditioning centres is because, so far as it lies with me, I want to do my utmost to secure that as many men as possible, having, as I say, for the first time come on to our register, should not find themselves unable, from physical disability or from being so completely out of condition, to take work again when opportunity offers. The work which they do at these reconditioning centres is mainly afforestation, and, in addition, there is some workshop instruction. This year we are going to try an experiment. It may be successful or it may not, but, at any rate, like many experiments, it is worth a trial. We are going to attach five tented camps to Centres on Forestry Commission land, conducted on the same lines. If these camps are a success, we shall repeat them; if they are not a success, of course they will not be continued.
Further, more centres on Crown land are in process of being opened or surveyed. I announced the other day that we are going to open one—I am not sure that it is not already open—at Kielder, in Northumberland. There will be a further centre in Argyllshire, which will take unemployed men from the industrial areas of Scotland, and we are conducting surveys on the conclusion of which, I hope, further centres will be opened in Yorkshire, Durham and South Wales which will be available, not only for men from the distressed areas surrounding those districts, but for further men from other parts of the country. It is extremely gratifying to me to find, as a result of very careful inquiries, that, as is mentioned in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour, the conduct of the men in these centres—both the training and the reconditioning centres—speaking broadly, has been admirable throughout the whole year, and there is a very considerable reserve of men who are anxious to come into them and to have the advantages which they provide. That is a
very satisfactory feature of this work, to which it is well worth while to call attention.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will these men be subject to the same conditions which obtain now as regards the question of pay? I recognise that this is an extremely useful experiment, but I should like to ask the Minister if he can give us an idea of the conditions under which the men will go there, and whether the conditions will be the same as they are at present? It is not quite voluntary, but is a part of the conditions on which they are granted standard benefit.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have not in my mind any alteration, but I would refer the hon. Member to page 32 of the Annual Report of the Ministry, which deals with the whole question of the obligations attaching to the entry to these training centres.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You are not proposing to alter them?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I had not any alteration in mind.

Mr. LAWSON: Do I gather from the report that, if it is not possible to get a man a job, as is frequently the case, the thing comes to an end, and the man merely goes voluntarily?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes; if that is what the hon. Member had in mind, that is so, and, if the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will read page 32 of the report, I think he will find an answer to his question. It is exactly as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the Minister going to say anything about training centres for unemployed women?

Sir H. BETTERTON: With regard to women, there are 33 training centres, under the management of the Central Committee on Women's Training. These centres received 5,058 women and girls, of whom 4,332 successfully completed the course, and no fewer than 4,079 were placed during the year within three months after leaving the centre. The number actually now in training is 1,009, the Majority being between 16 and 21 years of age. If the Noble Lady will look at the Estimates, I think she will find that the amount proposed for next
year is precisely the same as it was last year.

Viscountess ASTOR: As there are 500,000 women unemployed, and as these centres have been such a tremendous success, does not the Minister think it is time to increase them? The centres for men are being increased; is there not going to be an increase in the centres for women? The increase proposed for next year is very small.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The Noble Lady has raised a familiar point, namely, that of the conflicting claims of men and women. All I can say is that I have done the best I could with all the money I could get. If I had had more money at my disposal, I could have done more, but I have attempted to allocate it in the way that seemed to me to be most useful.
Our training is not confined to adults. There are at present over 140 junior instruction centres and classes, which are conducted by the local education authorities, aided by a grant from the Ministry, which is usually 75 per cent. The curriculum is left to the local education authorities, and it does not seek so much to train boys and girls for specific occupations, but embraces a considerable proportion of practical work. Taking adults and boys together, about 170,000 have passed through these courses during the last year. I want to say a word on a matter which is closely allied with this question of training and reconditioning, for the purpose of removing some misconception as to what is being done by the National Council of Social Service, and by the corresponding National Council for Community Service in Scotland, for the occupation of unemployed persons. I have never claimed, and never will claim, that the work they are doing is in substitution for Government responsibility. I want to make that perfectly clear.
There seems to be a suspicion in some quarters that the Government propose to take over these voluntary occupation centres. I say most emphatically that the Government have no such intention. They are anxious to see the voluntary movement developed and will do all that they can to assist the National Council, but they will do nothing that is likely to impair the voluntary character of the work. Most of these centres are run by
committees of the men, and in the great Majority of cases the men have the opportunity of using their hands in some handicraft. Connected with this movement we have given some opportunity to the unemployed for physical training. The Ministry started eight physical demonstration centres, and it is our policy to make arrangements wherever possible that at the end of the demonstration period they shall be taken over by local education authorities or by the local voluntary movement to be run on behalf of the men. I should like to pay my tribute to the self-sacrifice of many hundreds of men and women up and down the country who have done their best to make this work a success.
I pass now to another point, and I hope that what I say may be helpful to Members on all sides of the Committee. Doubts have often arisen whether an unemployed person is entitled to unemployment benefit or transitional payments if he is engaged in certain occupations or activities. Of course, to get benefit or transitional payment a man has to be unemployed, and he must be available for work, but there are many things that he can do to occupy his time without being employed in the sense which that word is used in the Unemployment Insurance Act, and without ceasing to be willing to accept any offers of suitable employment. I have often been asked, in the House and in correspondence, whether the cultivation of an allotment does not jeopardise a claim to benefit or transitional payments. I have sometimes been asked what is the position of persons attending occupational centres when they are taking part in voluntary labour schemes, and also what is the effect on a man's benefit if he does an occasional odd job, such as making a hen coop or painting a fence or something which only 'takes a short time. I have so often been asked these questions that I am having issued—it is in course of preparation—a leaflet which will be available within the next week making the position clear.
I want next to refer to the question of placing. I remember very well when the first Unemployment Insurance Bill came before the House. I was not a Member of the House, but I took an interest in the matter at that time and of course I have done so Since. I am not sure that
my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was not in charge of the Bill. I remember well the emphasis that was laid by those responsible for it on the importance of the Exchanges for placing men in employment. The payment of benefit was considered almost a subsidiary duty. The main purpose was always to be to enable a man to get a job if possible. Owing to the fact that we have such an immense register, the work of the Exchanges has, unfortunately, been largely occupied, necessarily, in the payment of benefit or relief, but I can assure the Committee that I have never lost sight of the enormous importance of fully utilising the Exchanges for the purpose of placing and finding jobs, and I have given every encouragement that I can, both at headquarters in London and in the provInces, to the officials in my Department urging upon them that this is one of the most valuable parts of the constructive work of the Ministry of Labour. In these circumstances, it is a matter of congratulation that, in a period of great depression, during last year the Exchanges filled 1,855,000 vacancies, representing more than 92 per cent. of the vacancies that were notified to them. Developments, often by way of experiment, are taking place all the time.
Last year, for instance, we made the experiment of recruiting men quite voluntarily for lifting the potato crop in Jersey, and that was a great success. 2,500 men went to Jersey. I have had a report in great detail of the results of the experiment, and I am fully satisfied that it justifies repetition, and we are going to try it again. We are also making special arrangements to meet the seasonal demand for labour in holiday resorts, and 51,000 persons were placed in this way last year. Farmers are using the Exchanges more and more for the purpose of getting men to work on their farms, and 33,000 were placed with them last year, which is 6,000 more than the previous year.
The juvenile side of this placing work is at least as important, perhaps more important, than the work of placing adult men and women, and it is shared between the Ministry of Labour and a number of local education authorities. Last year over 320,000 boys and girls were placed through the agency of the juvenile ex-
changes, nearly three times the number 10 years ago and a substantial advance of over 14,000 on last year's figures. We have also been successful in transferring a number of boys and girls from the depressed areas and finding them employment. Last year we transferred 600 boys and 2,500 girls. In all these activities the duty of the Exchange, and the consideration that they have to bear in mind, is the industrial qualification of the man. They have to consider who is best qualified for the job. Therefore, it is a matter of gratification that employers in increasing numbers are tending to use the Exchanges, and I think it is now recognised that we provide a service which is of real usefuiness.
I want now to refer to another aspect of the work of the Ministry of Labour—the administration of unemployment benefit and transitional payments. The Estimate provides for a sum of £54,000,000, which is a decrease as compared with last year of £29,000,000. The Estimate does not provide for all our requirements, because certain transitional payments only are provided up to 30th June next. To provide for the remaining three-quarters of this year it will be necessary to present a Supplementary Estimate. The Chancellor in his Budget statement allowed £22,500,000 for the purpose. The total of £54,000,000 is made up of an Exchequer contribution to the Insurance Fund of £22,600,000. Of that, £19,650,000 represents the Exchequer contribution to the fund, which is half the joint contribution of the other two. The remainder, £2,950,000, is the amount of the deficiency grant. The remaining £31,400,000 is for grants for transitional payments and the relative costs of administration. To give the Committee an idea of the immense administrative problems with which we have to deal, the exchanges pay out in unemployment benefit each week about £1,000,000 to 1,250,000 claimants. In addition to that, they pay out to those who are entitled to transitional payments. In the administration of the needs test the assessments are made by the public assistance committees, but the whole of the rest is administered through my Department. The applicants are registered at the exchanges and are paid through the exchanges. During the financial year that has just ended the average number
of persons registered at the exchanges as applicants for transitional payments was 1,110,000, and the total amount paid out by the Exchanges was something like £48,000,000.
In handling this vast volume of work, the exchanges have obviously been compelled to work at very high pressure, and I think they are to be congratulated on the way in which they have carried it out, because with all the criticisms that are made against the Government and all the criticisms that are often made against me, I am glad to say there has been hardly one against the officials of the Ministry here or in the provInces. That shows that they have carried out what often must be a very painful duty with a tact and discretion for which I think they are to be warmly commended. In regard to transitional payments, the overwhelming Majority of the authorities up and down the country have cooperated with the Ministry in carrying out their duties, and very many of the early difficulties and anomalies have been cleared up by administrative action. In two areas it was found necessary to appoint commissioners. Some time ago we had a Debate on the administration in Durham and, in answer to what I believe was the universal wish of those present in the House, I asked for a report from the commissioners, and I promised that, when I received it, I would lay it on the Table or in the Library. I have now received it. I have studied it and have decided to publish it, and I hope it will soon be available. I am very sorry to say that recently I had to warn an authority in South Wales that I could not, consistent with my responsibilities to this House, allow a deliberate disregard of the law. I will not say more than that at the moment, but I hope very much that it will be taken account of.
I want to say a few words upon another matter, because I was invited to make a comprehensive review. It relates to the administration of Trade Boards. I remember very well the first Trade Boards Bill. I was not a Member of the House, but I think it was about 1910 or 1909. It was represented that there were trades in this country so sweated that they were entitled to the protection of the State for their workpeople. There were four or five trades, and the chain-makers was said to be one of the worst of the sweated trades. Looking at the
operation of these Acts, I am satisfied that they have proved, and are proving, a very valuable instrument in unorganised and sweated trades, but I think it is essential that the application of the Trade Boards Acts should be limited to proper cases. If you were to have an indiscriminate application of the Trade Boards Acts to all sorts of trades which do not come within this category, then, so far from doing good, you might do actual harm to those whom you desired to help.
I have had occasion within the last few weeks to consider two trades, and I have come to the conclusion in regard to both of them that they come within the description and category of those who are entitled to have a trade board. In the case of the fustian-cutting trade, I have already issued a notice of my intention to apply the Acts, and I have also decided to take similar action in the case of the cutlery trade. I am glad to say that I am assured of the support of the organisations of both employers and employed. I am satisfied that with the removal of the very serious undercutting of wages which has been taking place in the cutlery trade those who are endeavouring to improve its efficiency and competitive position will be assisted.
During the past year there were over 20,000 inspections of firms, and the wages of 227,000 workers were examined. Of these under 3 per cent. were found to be paid less than the proper rate, and I think that that indicates that on the whole the trade boards have protected conditions and adjusted them to the circumstances.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to apply it to mining?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I want to refer to another part of the work at the Ministry of Labour which is perhaps the most important of all our activities. It is our conciliation work. Employers and employed, and trade union leaders, and the Ministry can congratulate themselves on the way in which important and serious industrial disputes have been avoided during the past year. I do not suppose that the general public have any idea—and indeed there is no reason why they should, and it is perhaps just as
well that they do not know—what is going on almost every day in industry up and down the country. You may have some incipient quarrel which, unless handled tactfully on both sides, may develop and flare up into a serious dispute. In numbers of these cases, some of them comparatively trivial and some of larger dimensions, over and over again the good offices of the conciliation officers of the Ministry of Labour up and down the country has been called in. Over and over again the conciliation officers have assisted those who have asked for their assistance and have prevented disputes flaring up into serious trouble. All this is work which receives very little publicity. I do not. in the least ask that publicity should be given to it, but I should like to mention it, because I believe that it is a feature of our national life which cannot be too highly valued. I do not very often receive tributes from anybody, but I have often had indications of thanks from both employers and employed in the country for the assistance which I or the Ministry through our officers have been able to give in this connection.
There has only been one really serious dispute during the last 12 months. I refer, of course, to the great dispute in the cotton industry last autumn. Serious as is the position in that industry—and nobody realises that fact more than I do—I am glad to say that they themselves freely acknowledge the debt which as an industry they owe to the services which we as a Ministry of Labour were able to render last autumn. That disastrous stoppage was not only brought to a close, but new conciliation machinery was established, which, we hope, will operate for the next two or three years. It is very unusual, in fact I think it is never done, to mention the name of a civil servant, and I am not going to infringe that rule, but I will say that the officer in my Department, whose name was a household word in connection with this dispute, deserves well, not merely of the industry, but also of the country as a whole for the work which he did.
I do not see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) in his place, but he may remember that some time ago I gave him an answer to a question in which I said that I was proposing to consult the representatives
of both employers and employed as to whether they could offer any practical suggestions with the object of providing employment for a larger number of persons in industry. I am glad to say that both sides readily acceded to my request, and I have had conversations with both sides. I made it clear that the limitation of the hours of work was only one of the matters which required consideration. I made it clear that I wanted to consider every constructive proposal, and that I wanted from them their estimate— the estimate of both sides—of the effect upon their industry of any of the policies proposed. As Minister of Labour I conceive it to be my duty to consider all these things objectively and without any political prejudice one way or the other. I am glad to say that both sides met me in the best possible spirit, and I am expecting to receive their considered views on the various aspects of the problem.

Mr. BATEY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us who is meant by "both sides"?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The Trades Union Congress on the one side, and the Confederation of Employers on the other. There is one other thing I want to say, and I am sorry to have to say it. I read with indignation a statement made by Mr. Tom Shaw this week in connection with cotton. Speaking to the operatives' representatives as Secretary to the International Federation of Textile Workers—reported, I think, in the "Manchester Guardian" —he made the following astounding statement:
We are …the most backward nation on earth with regard to legislation for hours of labour for men. We are even worse than Japan. We have no legislation on hours for men except the miners, and it is our own fault. We used to be proud of being the first nation in the World. We are rapidly losing our position, and we are losing it because we are not determined enough.
It is well known, and to no one better than he, that there is in the cotton industry a rigid 48-hour week both for machinery and operatives.

Mr. TOM SMITH: Not by legislation.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I know, not by legislation. Except in the preparatory section no machine or operative can work a minute over 48 hours. There is in this
country legislation prohibiting Sunday and night-work for women and juveniles. Let me compare that situation with Japan. In the report of the International Labour Office published only a few weeks ago on "Industrial Labour in Japan," it says:
The only statutory limitation of hours of work in Japanest factories relates to women and young persons.
Those statutory hours of work are 11 hours a day. In this country one shift only is worked, and Saturday afternoons and Sundays are free. In Japan two and sometimes three shifts are worked, and a large proportion of the workers have only two days off a month. The average wages of cotton workers are: men 1.2 yen a day, which is about 1s. 6d.; women, .75 to .9 yen per day, which is about 11d. to 1s. 1½d. plus, where provided, dormitory, food, &c, estimated to be worth 30 sen a day, or 4½d. To compare the condition in this country and say that it is worse than the condition in Japan, is such fantastic nonsense that I cannot imagine that he thought that those whom he was addressing would be taken in by it. The President of the Cardroom Amalgamation, who was present at the same meeting, said at once, in the course of the discussion, that
Japan is winning all along the line, because of inhuman conditions among her workers and large State subsidy; because of a state of things which it is quite impossible for an industry unaided to combat.
I should like the hours to be reduced in the cotton industry as much as anyone, but I should like to know what would be the effect; whether it would involve a corresponding reduction in wages and further loss of trade in face of foreign competition, with a consequent increase in unemployment? It is on those vital questions that neither they nor I got the smallest assistance from Mr. Shaw when he spoke. I have endeavoured, within the limitation of time, to give a comprehensive review of the work of this great Department. I believe that the Ministry of Labour is trusted by the public, and I know that it is regarded with confidence by the great mass of men and women whom it endeavours to help in the time of their distress.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
The right hon. Gentleman has given a full review of the administration of his department. I am sure he will not object to my saying that, while we appreciate that review, we must jog his memory about some very important facts that he omitted from his statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not very often get compliments. I can say this to him at any rate: The Minister of Labour by the very nature of the functions that he performs, let him be ever so able, almost invites hostility. A significant thing about the Minister of Labour is that he, with perhaps the greatest departmental responsibility in the Government, has not by any means power equal to that responsibility. It is a further significant fact that in Debates dealing with matters which are so vital to this country, not only to-day but always, the chief members of the Cabinet who ought to be here are conspicuously absent. Here is a department that deals with no fewer than 12,000,000 insured contributors, and indirectly with a far greater number of workers. Apart from the professional workers in the higher ranks, numbering some 4,000,000 or 5,000,000, the Minister to-day has been giving an account of his stewardship in relation to those with whom he is in vital contact at every point, and they include practically the whole working manhood and womanhood of the nation.
Industrial relations, international relations, trade boards—the multitude of functions that the Minister has to perform in his department involve an Estimate of nearly £54,000,000. When matters of that kind are being debated not only ought representative Ministers to be present, in addition to the Minister of Labour who bears a very grave responsibility, but the House should be better attended. [An HON. MEMBER: "By all parties.] I quite agree; I am not making any distinctions at all. These sparse attendances are only too common. I shall deal with the reason later. The truth, of course, is that the House, like the country, has been almost overcome with pessimism regarding the unemployment problem, and I shall show where a great deal of the responsibility lies. The right hon. gentleman dealt to some ex-
tent with transitional payment, and one of his statements ought here to be dealt with. The grants for transitional payment are "down" by over £22,000,000, from £54,000,000 to £31,000,000. I do not know the explanation, but I think it would be well if the Minister would tell us just what the Ministry is saving on transitional payments. I ask that question for this reason: It seems strange that there should be such a great drop when actually there have been more people on transition than there were when the transitional payments Order was put into operation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time calculated that he would save £10,000,000, and that he would save about £12,500,000 on the 10 per cent. reduction, but, from the hypothetical estimate that the right hon. Gentleman gave us the other day I gathered that with the coming in of the new Insurance Act there would be a saving of something like £36,000,000 in 18 months. One thing is certain, and that is that the Government are saving much more than the £10,000,000 that was origiNaily estimated. There is a decrease in the estimated amount for the coming year, as against last year, of nearly £23,000,000.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not sure that I appreciate to what exactly the hon. Gentleman is referring. If he will look at page 3 of the Estimates he will see at the bottom, in black print, this statement:
This Estimate does not cover a full year's provision for certain services. In particular the power to make transitional payments in the case of persons who do not satisfy the first statutory condition (i.e., the 30 contributions rule) expires on 30th June, 1933. This Estimate includes provision in respect of transitional payments in these cases only up to that date.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what the saving is over the estimate to which he has referred. I cannot carry the figures in my mind, but I can assure him that the saving is nothing like £36,000,000.

Mr. LAWSON: Quite recently I put a question in the House and the right hon. Gentleman gave me an answer which to my mind was very significant. I asked him how many applicants for transitional payments had been refused any payment, and the number who had received reduced payment Since the operation of the Order in Council. The answer he gave was:

Period.
Allowed at rates lower than maximum benefit rates.
Needs of applicants held not to justify payment.


12th November, 1931— 23rd January, 1932.*
764,223
319,112


25th January, 1932— 1st April, 1933:




Initial Applications
506,762
285,989


Renewals and Revisions.
3,806,803
389,788

[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1933; cols. 1721 and 1722; Vol. 277.]

That is only an indication of what is going on in the country. In his statement to-day the right hon. Gentleman paid a tribute to those people who have been giving voluntary help in dealing with unemployment. He told us that the Government did not regard that effort as a substitute for Government responsibility, but I am afraid that, although the right hon. Gentleman said that, in actual fact that is the view taken of it by the public and the country generally. The Government have reduced transitional payments to such an extent that they really have not only robbed the people of the clothes off their backs but have taken the food from their stomachs. It is generally considered now that this business, which was a very laudable endeavour on the part of volunteers, is how a kind of semi-Government charity, and is part of a policy for the reduction of the payments and the robbing of the payments to the unemployed. I am sorry I have to say that to the right hon. Gentleman, because we know that he persoNaily would rather administer his Department on a much more generous scale. But it is the logic of the policy pursued by the Government from the beginning. I am sorry to have to say that. Those of us who know this matter to our regret have only too clear illustrations north, south, east and west, of the lamentable results of the policy on transitional payment which is known as the need test.

The right hon. Gentleman gave us a very encouraging picture of the growth of employment as against unemployment. I was not surprised to hear him say that for the first four months of this year the
employment figures have shown a distinct advance. He could also have said that the seasonal figures have emerged successfully almost for the first time for years. We are very pleased to have such news as that. It may be that it shows a tendency within a small circle of a return to something like normality. But the fact is quite clear that the average of those employed year after year is coming down in a distressing way. The really menacing thing about unemployment and the industrial position of the country is that, bad as unemployment is, there is a rapid and continual decrease in the number of those regularly employed. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the figure he gave, while they showed some improvement on the usual seasonal parallel of the years that have gone by, are mainly seasonal figures, and are figures for what one might call the good months of the year. I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having brought the Ministry of Labour report up-to-date. We have it to the end of 1932, and that is very useful.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not sure that the hon. Member is right in what he has said about the figures of employment. The figures I gave for the first four months of this year show an increase of about a quarter of a million Since January. That is 92,000 more than a year ago. I have not compared it with the figures of employment in September, 1931, but my impression is that there has been a considerable advance Since then. Therefore, I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to say that the amount of employment is going down. On the contrary, it is going up.

Mr. LAWSON: We have to take the measure of the year generally. Taking the general level of industry, things are becoming distinctly worse. Let me give the figures. For 1929, the figure of employment was 10,250,000, for 1930, 9,797,000, for 1931, 9,421,000, and for 1932, 9,352,000. The right hon. Gentleman will see that in those four years there is a drop of 1,000,000. If he looks at the figures for the past four months he will see that the increase in the employment figures are an increase upon the average for those four years, but I say that those are the good months. I hope that the standard continues, but there is a distinct drop all round, because of the
increased use of machinery. The right hon. Gentleman must know that that is so. In his last report he points out that in coal mining and many of the basic industries there is a continual decrease in employment, even in the good months. That is the real menace, and the Government must really face up to the fact. The Government seem to think that somehow or other, something will turn up to put things right, but they will have to face these menacing facts before they are much older. I have received a letter which reveals a very serious position. It points out that at a large colliery, Boldon, 610 men have received their notices, and that at Whitburn, another large colliery, 800 men have received their notices. It goes on to say:
This is the biggest blow that Boldon has had in our history…It has cast quite a cloud over the area. Whole families of long standing have been wiped out.
If this sort of thing stood alone I should not pay so much attention to it, but it is an indication of what is happening in the country generally, and it troubles me and my hon. Friends on this side of the House just as if we were as responsible as the right hon. Gentleman. The letter names persons whom I have known from boyhood and who are known to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). It says:
According to our deputation there does not seem much hope. The facts are, that we are to be a whole-time machine colliery. Hewers and putters are to be dispensed with and valuable seams are to be closed because we are in excess to Hilda and Harton collieries.…It will affect all the progressive movements at the colliery, nursing association, baths, welfare, co-operative society and tradesmen because of the large number of contributors who will cease to function.
There was a time when economists told us that if we put machinery in a factory or a colliery there was sure to be such an enlargement of trade that it would he all to the good. No economist will tell us that to-day. At one time one could move from one place where machinery had upset the normal activities and go to some other district, but you cannot do that now. At one time the Conservative party were absolutely sure that the unemployment question could he solved by sending people to Canada or the Colonies. That does not operate now. Indeed there is a balance inwards rather
than outwards. At one time the Government—I remember the Government which was in office from 1924 to 1929—believed in transference and we tried the same thing for all it was worth when we were in office. No one would say that transference to-day, except in so far as you treat the country as a unit for this purpose, is any use. Transference has been abandoned. I am, however, glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman has met the situation to some extent in one respect. Instead of waiting and merely keeping a trading centre open on the assurance that the man who is trained gets a job although he now finds he cannot get a job, he still leaves the training centre open for others who are not sure that they will get a job so that they can keep in training.
The point that has to be borne in mind is that old nostrums have failed in the face of this decreasing employment. What are the Government going to do about it? The situation must be faced. It cannot be blinked at very much longer. You can train a man, you can be charitable to him, but that is not going to meet the needs of men or women or the nation. These years are what we call the apex of the war years births, when there are fewer boys and girls on the average coming into industry than in normal years. We have been told repeatedly that in these years those under 18 would be so decreased because of the reduction in war years births that it would be a great contribution towards a reduction in the number of unemployed. But as a matter of fact in these apex years we find that unemployment is increased. There are more girls and women coming into industry than ever before. No one objects to that, but it is significant that the Ministry of Labour report shows that 75 per cent. of the girls who left school last year are going into work of some kind. Ten or 20 years ago that was an unthinkable thing. Now, however, they go into industry, and that has to be borne in mind for the future.
Many factors have to be kept in mind which show that employment is not going to increase. I am sorry to put this point, but it is too important to be ovErieoked very much longer. What are the Government going to do? There are things that they can do. There is in this country at the present time gross overtime being worked. One peculiar thing is that the
very machine that throws people out of work is an excuse for overtime. Take what happens in a coal mine. At the coal face you get a machine working for 400 or 500 yards on the coal face. We used to think six yards a very dangerous width to run. Now they go 500 yards. They say that the machine has to keep on cutting and the men must continue to make a proper cut for the men who are coming in, while the men who are filling have to clear up and to make a road for the machines. Men who have talked to me about this matter have not dared to talk aloud. A man came to see me recently and he told me that he had worked 10 shifts. He said: "I want a bit of relief, but I dare not say anything." One man from a great steel area who came specially to see me told me a very lamentable tale of how men were working overtime while others were being thrown out of work. He beseeched me not to mention his name or even to mention the matter. We have asked the Minister for information about these things. I know it is difficult to get any information, but the Government will have to take extraordinary means to learn the extent of this movement in the near future.
There is the question of the reduction of hours. How are the Government going to evade serious consideration of that question? It is not merely a question of 48 hours. It may mean less. The Government's policy has led in another direction. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has seen the Trade Union Congress and the Confederation of Labour.

Sir H. BETTERT0N: The Confederation of Employers.

Mr. LAWS0N: He did not tell us much about what they have done or what is their point of view. Sooner or later the Government will have to take steps to level out leisure. Men do not want to be idle or unemployed, while on the other hand the people who are working want some little relief. I know that there are difficulties. As a practical man who has attended the Conferences at Geneva as a representative of the Ministry of Labour I know how great the difficulties are. Whatever defects the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Mines have found in respect of the Convention for Mines, I have no doubt that if the Labour Government had
remained in office, with their particular point of view, notwithstanding the difficulties, I think there would have been a uniform seven hours day in the mines in Europe to-day. I think all the Governments were convInced that it was a practical solution. If it is possible in one industry it is possible in another. If it is possible to get a seven-hour day, it is possible to get a six-hour day always, of course, through international agreements. If there was a desire to achieve this purpose I think the Governments could give it practical effect in a short time. The situation is becoming really so menacing that it cannot be allowed to drift without causing great danger to the country.
The right hon. Gentleman can do one thing. He can see that those who are unemployed are dealt with leniently and decently, that there is a somewhat generous interpretation of the Acts. I asked a question the other day as to how many people during the last 12 months had lost their benefit under the condition of not normally being in an insurable occupation. The right hon. Gentleman knows the kind of people they are. They are not the wastrels. As a rule they are people who have given their lives to industry. It is a lamentable fact that the figures which the Minister gave for last month show that no less than one-fifth of the total number of unemployed, 500,000, have been out of work for 12 months or more. The number of those who are wholly unemployed is now larger than the number of the temporary unemployed. It used to be the other way about, but at the moment no less than 500,000 have been out of work for 12 months and more. That is a significant feature in the decrease of employment, but in addition the number of people who have lost their claims as not being in an insurable occupation, is 253,000. The Minister said that this figure did not necessarily mean persons, but I contend that very few people come back to claim again who have once lost their benefit or their transitional payment. There is no doubt that this is where the increase in the Poor Law has come from. There is 250,000 increase in the numbers on the Poor Law.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member must remember that these are the results of decisions of courts of referees, over which I have no control.

Mr. LAWSON: It depends on the insurance officer as to whether a case goes to the court of referees. It may be that no special instructions are given—I do not say that there are any special instructions—but I do say that it is significant that there should be such a rapid increase in the number of people who have lost their claims to benefit under that special condition. There is probably a reason for it.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Perhaps I had better explain it now—the same point had occurred to me. I am, of course, speaking now from memory, but the numbers who are struck off under this condition month by month are not getting larger, in fact they are getting less, but it becomes accumulative, and the longer it goes on, the more people that are struck off, the larger the aggregate becomes. There is no indication that courts of referees are construing this condition more harshly or more strictly than before.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not say they are, but it looks as if the insurance officer is sending more of these people to the courts of referees.

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, and the answer to that is that the monthly numbers are not increasing. If you look at this month, and last month, and at the previous month, you will find that the monthly figures are not increasing. The aggregate, of course, if increasing.

Mr. LAWSON: The fact remains that 250,000 persons have lost their claim to benefit in the last 12 months. They are living in areas which are suffering from long unemployment; their last resources have now gone. Let me sum up the situation. We are asked to vote £54,000,000 for this Department. The net result of its work is that there are more unemployed this year than last, and that a great mass of the people have gone on to the Poor Law. They should be counted in the unemployed.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member, I am sure, does not want to do the Department an injustice. He will not suggest that the result of the work of the Ministry during the last 12 months has been to create more unemployment. That is a mistake.

Mr. LAWSON: Shall I say that the work which the Minister of Labour has not been
able to do, or has not the power to do, has resulted in more unemployment this year than last. The Government's policy has completely failed to meet the situation. In the case of great masses of the people the little means they had have been taken away, they are without hope of work; how they ever live some of us cannot understand. At one time we had the Unemployed Grants Committee. There was nothing charitable about it. That Department has been closed down. We have been told by the Minister of Health that the Government have a policy, that they are prepared to accept some schemes and to give grants under certain conditions. That is a most outstanding deception. I do not know a single authority which has been able to get a single scheme through. The Unemployed Grants Committee has been closed down by the Government, and they have done next to nothing. The Prime Minister goes to America and makes a declaration about a policy of expansion, using public credit for public works. The Government allows the Prime Minister to be almost a Labour man in America, but when he comes here the Prime Minister has to sit silent and see the policy for which he stands and in which he believes so negatived that not a single person gets work by reason of any schemes put forward by the Government.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: The Committee, I am sure, heard with great interest the wide if not comprehensive survey which the Minister of Labour gave of the work of his Department. No one will accuse him of any feeling of complacency with regard to the great task he is endeavouring to perform. Indeed, the feeling which the Committee must have for him is one of great sympathy in having, under conditions of difficulty, to deal with a task which is almost superhuman. I heard with great satisfaction the emphasis which the Minister of Labour laid upon the constructive side of the work of the Department—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and there being 40 Members present—

Mr. WHITE: If I have any criticism to make of the constructive side of the work of the Department it is not so much
of the quality or the nature of the experiments he proposes, but of the quantity, especially on the juvenile side of that task. I should like to associate myself with two remarks which were made by the Minister with regard to the administrative side of his task. First of all when he paid a tribute to the officials who work the administration of unemployment benefit, and the Employment Exchanges. They have to work under conditions which sometimes are little short of heartbreaking, and the fact that they do their work with such good humour and on the whole with such satisfaction to those for whom they have to work, is greatly to their credit.
It is satisfactory to know that the placing side of the work of the Department is maintained and is increasing. I, myself, have had unsolicited and remarkable testimony lately from important manufacturers as to the service rendered in this respect by Exchanges of which I have knowledge. This work has not only been of service to the manufacturers, but also of very great service to the unemployed themselves, and in many cases it makes a remarkable difference to their comfort and to their arrangements for going to work. Nevertheless, I am a little doubtful as to whether more should not be done to make known the placing facilities which are available at the Exchanges to those who might make use of them. I find that there are some who, in spite of all the efforts which have been made to make them known, are still ignorant that such facilities exist. It has occurred to me that my right hon. Friend might borrow from the Secretary of State for the Dominions the sites which are used at present to advertise the Empire Marketing Board and use them to display announcements of the facilities which the Employment Exchanges provide. I am afraid that he could not supply the same beautiful decorative effects as those which are supplied by the Dominions Secretary, but some step of that kind would serve a useful purpose.
With regard to the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) on the administration of the insurance scheme proper and of the transitional payments, I think it cannot be denied that the Minister and his colleagues and advisers are in a great difficulty. They are in a great difficulty
with regard to prospective legislation dealing with this tripartite problem of the insurance scheme, the transitional payments and the residual persons who fall within the Poor Law. They are also—and I say it in no unfriendly spirit—in an insoluble difficulty with regard to the administration of the existing scheme. It is insoluble in this sense, that there is no possible solution for unemployment by means of relief. It is impossible to give any form of compensation by means of payments or by any transitory occupational employment in a centre or elsewhere to that great mass of 850,000 men in the prime of life who are out of work. It is for that reason, among others, that one may describe the problem as insoluble. There is also the impossibility of devising machinery for dealing with the fluctuating conditions of industry and the gradations in the physical capacity of men for work. There are all the different classes, between those who are fully capable of doing any work, whatever it is, and the border-line cases. One class shades off into another and it is exceedingly difficult to deal with them by any administrative method. The right hon. Gentleman has a task there which, I believe, is almost beyond human capacity. It is true that the effort must be made. The right hon. Gentleman and his advisers and the Government will produce legislation in due course which they think may meet the situation. It is the duty of Parliament to assist them in their task by criticism and suggestion. It is a national task and there is no evidence that the Ministry of Labour will not be glad to receive any suggestions which are likely to lead to its accomplishment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street referred to the large number of people who are being struck off the benefit roll on the ground that they are not normally earning their livelihood in insurable occupations. In that category there are some indescribably hard cases of elderly men, men of from 60 to 62 who, having worked all their lives, and perhaps for 20 years at a stretch without once being out of work, are now being disqualified on that ground. It is most humiliating to them. It touches their pride, especially when they see much younger men, who have had a comparatively short spell of work
drawing full benefit. I am aware of the administrative difficulties which prevent the Minister from interfering at the moment and I only mention that as one of the grievances which are very difficult to remedy and which make the task of Parliament and of the Minister in this matter extraordinarily hard. It is for these reasons that I think this problem if it is to be dealt with in a satisfactory way must be approached from a new angle. If, in this uncertain world there is anything which can be predicted, it is that the rapid development of machinism and the great intensity of its application to industry is going to increase permanently and in great measure the enforced idleness—leisure is the better word—of the community as a whole. Reorganisation will be forced upon industry. Industry will have to deal with the new state of affairs. There is no escape from that situation and the sooner we begin to devote our minds to it the better. The right hon. Gentleman in response to a question referred to negotiations which were taking place on his initiative between the Trade Union Congress and the representatives of the employers.

Mr. LEWIS JONES: I do not think it was said that negotiations were taking place, but that consultations were taking place, with the Minister.

Mr. WHITE: I am sorry if I used the wrong word but I do not think I am under any misapprehension as to what is happening. I think it is the case that consultations are taking place with a view to exploring the possibility of arriving at some method by which a greater amount of labour can be absorbed.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not think that that is quite right either. It is an examination by both sides of what the effect would be on individual industries, of the various proposals which are being made and which have for their object the absorption of persons in these industries.

Mr. WHITE: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, but I think it was my expression that was at fault rather than my understanding of the situation. It is clear that before those explorations have gone very far, those engaged in them
will be confronted with the great difficulty that limitations of an international character, affecting the interests of industry and affecting this question, will present grave problems. We in this country will be driven, I think, to take the common-sense view. There is no reason why, if we organise ourselves properly, this great increase in enforced idleness or leisure, should not be a blessing rather than a curse. Let us direct it and concentrate it upon the people to whom it can be of abiding benefit. Let us concentrate it upon the old and upon the young. Can we do so and at the same time bring about a more reasonable adjustment between the supply of and the demand for the labour of those, at the present time out of work, who are in the prime of life and in the enjoyment of full vigour. That is a problem to which the Ministry and Parliament must devote attention.
I ask the Committee seriously to consider the juvenile employment problem. Since 1929 the volume of juvenile unemployment has risen by approximately 150 per cent. and the number unemployed between the ages of 14 and 18 is estimated at the present time to be 130,000. If we assume, as I suppose we may, that that forecast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to a decade of considerable unemployment, is, in some degree correct, the position with regard to juvenile unemployment becomes in prospect positively alarming. Owing to the post-War bulge in the birth rate to which reference has been made, if the general volume of unemployment among juveniles is to remain somewhere about the same level, then by 1937 there will be added to the number I have mentioned some 440,000 boys and girls making a total of 600,000. That is a situation which the Committee will scarcely regard as tolerable, and we must insist that something should be done to meet it. The inevitable conclusion is that the only way out of a difficult situation is that there should be a great development of the constructive side of the work of the Ministry. There must be a great development of education and a wholesale development of training, whether whole-time or part-time. Something is required different from the experiments which the Minister sketched this afternoon and involving a sum of money, not of the same order as the £600,000 which
the right hon. Gentleman regretfully informed us was all that he could bring to bear on this work under the present Estimates.
If there were to be an extension of the beneficial occupation of juveniles, if, for example, there were to be a scheme for training all juveniles between 14 and 18, either on a half-time or full-time basis, it would bring us up against a considerable financial problem. It would also cause us to consider another aspect of this important matter. If it were possible to withdraw from employment and put into beneficial training juveniles between 14 and 18—and that is what we shall have to do sooner or later, whether we wish to do it or not—what will be the effect upon the employment of those who are in the prime of life I It is quite clear that the substitution of juvenile labour by adult labour is a complicated and difficult subject, and the information available does not enable one to enter upon its consideration with any degree of certainty. But at least it seems certain that if the 1,900,000 juveniles in this country who are, or who will be available, were withdrawn from the labour field up to the age of 18, it would have an important effect upon the demand for labour. It would make a great breach in the 500,000 unemployed between the ages of 18 and 25, and it would inevitably go beyond that and increase the employment available for the 880,000 who are in the prime of life and are at the present time without any employment.
One is tempted to ask, What would be the financial effect upon the country? If one may assume—and it is a modest assumption—that something like 600,000 adults would be brought back into employment, and if one may assume further that the average amount which they receive per week by way of benefit and allowances is 18s., there would be liberated by that operation the sum of £28,000,000 a year. You can do a great deal of training and provide a great many educational facilities with the sum of £28,000,000 a year. You could, in my judgment, deal with the whole problem of training and education, and you might also be able to deal with the question of such personal allowances as might be required. It is upon these lines that I think we shall be called upon to move in this country, and to move before very long, because it is
not merely the rapid deterioration of the youth of the country which will come about if we do not act on these lines, but we shall have, as the next few years go on, an increasing glut of juvenile labour, which must inevitably compete with adult labour; and the best laid schemes of insurance and relief, to which I know the right hon. Gentleman is at present giving his mind, with the valuable assistance of his capable advisers, will be completely upset.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

6.2 p.m.

Whereupon the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1.Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933.
2. Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1933.
3. Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act, 1933.
4. Exchange Equalisation Account Act, 1933.
5. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Torquay) Act, 1933.
6. London and North Eastern Railway Act, 1933.
7. Durham Corporation Act, 1933.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,592,900, be granted for the said Service.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. WHITE: When Black Rod summoned us to another place, I was inviting the Committee to consider a great extension of the constructive side of the Ministry of Labour by an enlargement of its training and educational activities, because I believe that a new approach to the whole problem of the treatment of unemployment is essential, and because I
feel certain that the juvenile unemployment problem cannot be left to-day where it is without disaster to the juveniles themselves, and that it should be in any future scheme based purely upon relief which the Minister may ask us to consider. If the figures which I have mentioned this afternoon are not an exaggeration, we may reach in 1937 a figure of 600,000 juveniles unemployed. The position is one which it is difficult to contemplate without horror. We know what is going on in enforced idleness at street-corners. When you approach groups of men you find that some of them have not had a job for six months, some for 12 months, and some even Since they left school.
Another insidious thing which is making itself felt upon our national life now is the position of the family where the father is out of work, and perhaps a son or two are in work and making a small sum and are called upon to keep the home. That has a very bad psychological effect upon the boy, and a disastrous effect upon the whole atmosphere of the family. It is for these reasons that I invite the Committee and the Minister to give very serious consideration to the proposition which I have ventured to lay before them. I would ask the Minister to investigate promptly the effect of the withdrawal of juvenile labour and the substitution of adult labour in some typical industries. One might suggest the cotton trade and also the distributive trades as those which might present particular difficulties. I hope that the Minister with the information before him will come to the House and submit his conclusions.

6.18 p.m.

Miss WARD: On the occasions on which I have had the privilege of addressing the Committee I have spoken entirely as a supporter of the National Government on their general policy, but to-night I am going to exercise my right as a citizen representing a constituency which is profoundly affected by the work of the Ministry of Labour. Frankly, I am disappointed at the work of that Department. Ever Since the Inception of the needs test there have been legitimate grievances in its conception, in its administration, and in the variation of
details of scales which have called forth condemnation from hon. Members, from certain sections of the Press, and from people who have been called upon to carry out the regulations which have been laid down by the Order in Council. Conflict has raged round the question of taking into consideration the earnings of other people in the household when the head of the house comes before the public assistance committee for the assessment of transitional payment. Conflict has raged round the inclusion of old age pensions, of army reserve pay, and of unemployment insurance benefit in assessing need. I do not intend to-night to refer to disability pensions or to Capttal assets, because to some degree they have been dealt with by the Ministry of Labour. I must, however, refer to the recomendations in the Report of the Unemployment Insurance Commission on the points I have raised, which have been argued about and discussed, and with regard to which, on very many occasions, hon. Members have attempted to persuade the Minister to give some assistance. I will refer first to the assessment of the family income. In discussing that, the Majority Report of the Unemployment Insurance Commission says:
If we do not give an exact definition of the household and the degree of the mutual responsibility of members of the household, we think also that the reasonableness and the practicability of our proposals depend upon the adoption of intelligible principles of treatment with regard to different elements of family income, and particularly with regard to earnings. The practice of regarding almost the whole income of each member of the household as available equally for all the other members is not easily defensible, and we think it necessary that under any system of discretionary assessment definite guidance should be given to the assessing bodies as to the treatment of different kinds of income. We suggest below the lines on which in our judgment guidance might be given.
The Report goes on to say:
If all earnings are taken into account, the Incentive to earn is diminished. We think it well to avoid that situation and, therefore, recommend that in assessing the needs of the applicant himself a proportion of earnings should he ignored so that an unemployed worker is not deterred from taking short spells of work.
It must be well known to the Minister that Members representing industrial areas where unemployment is rife have pressed and pressed again in order that
we might obtain some kind of guidance for the help of public assistance committees in assessing needs. I have told my people on repeated occasions quite fearlessly, that where the State is paying money into the family, the State, of necessity, has a right to know whether that money is required, but after a certain period of time—and I say this with great deference to the Department—one becomes absolutely weary of trying to get some sort of help for the kind of constituency that I represent.
I turn to another proposition. I think, and I suppose that the Majority of people in the country will agree, that where a man is drawing unemployment standard benefit for a period of 26 weeks, which is his by legal right under the definition of the law laid down in this House, it is unfair that, in assessing the family needs, that the 15s. 3d. payable to the applicant should be regarded as family income available for the whole of the family. I turn to the report of the Royal Commission on this matter which says:
This item will affect only members of the household other than the applicant for relief. If the member of the household in receipt of benefit is wholly unemployed and is not in receipt of other payments (with the exception of trade union benefits) he should be regarded as outside the household group for the purpose of assessing resources and needs.
I think that that point has also been brought to the attention of the Minister, but again we have been unable, during the 18 months Since the needs test became the law of the land, to obtain any help from the Department. Again, with regard to State pensions, the Unemployment Insurance Commission recommended:
Where a member of the household is in receipt of an old age pension (contributory or non-contributory), or a widow's or orphan's contributory pension, and is not in receipt of other income, that member should be ignored both as a contributor to the income of the household and as a person to be provided for.
May I digress for a moment to make my position plain? I am not contrasting the records of the National Government, the late Socialist Government, or its supporters in the Liberal party; and I would remind hon. Members above the Gangway that their contribution was "promises without performances," and that of hon. Members opposite "criticism
without courage." I am not comparing the records of the three parties. I do think, however, that on occasions like this I have a right, speaking as a citizen, to put forward the point of view of my area. Again, we have on repeated occasions brought to the notice of the Minister the variations in the administration as well as in the scales in certain industrial areas adjoining one another. I mentioned earlier the particular point of Army Reserve pay. We have had a tremendous amount of difficulty in my own division, and now, because the committee which is administering the needs test must of necessity operate entirely the Order in Council, the whole of the Army Reserve pay of the men in my division is being taken into consideration. That is not the fault of the committee because there has been no guidance from the Ministry of Labour on this point. In the adjacent area, which is Newcastle-on-Tyne and immediately over the river, we find that the committees are using their own discretion and, not taking the whole amount of the Army Reserve pay into consideration. Is there any reason why some guidance, at any rate, might not have been given by the Department? I feel strongly that the people for whom I have some responsibility should be placed in this very unfortunate position as compared with other areas.
Before leaving this point, I want to call the attention of the Minister to another recommendation in the Report of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. We have been told by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary on many occasions that they cannot interfere with the scales of relief as laid down by the various councils responsible for administering them, but I find in this report that one of the strongest recommendations of the Majority of the Commission was this. Referring to the Minister of Labour, they say:
He should aim at seeing that a proper relation is kept between the relief scales and the rates of benefit provided by the insurance scheme and avoiding undue variations between adjoining industrial areas; and in the last resort, as we suggest, he will have the power actually to impose a scale either on all areas or on some defined group of areas or on individual authorities.
In spite of that, under the present Order in Council, no power is given to the Minister, and there was no reason, as far as I can see, why the Department
should not have taken some action in this connection seeing it is recommended by the commission. Coming from a part of the country where unemployment is almost Unbelievable in its distress, I appeal strongly to the Minister to give some guidance in order to ease the burdens of those people who are obliged to accept transitional payments rather than work and wages.
From that I come to this point. I listened yesterday to a brilliant exposition from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in reply to the challenge from hon. Members above the Gangway that the unemployed were worse off now than they were when the Socialist party was in office, but on such occasions I just think to myself, "How I wish that we could forget politics and come down to plain facts!" It was a brilliant exposition and answer, if I may respectfully say so, but I would point out, speaking for those in my area, that it does not matter whether 20s. purchases 22s. worth of goods to-day whereas three years ago it purchased only 18s. worth. The point is that it is impossible for a man—with a wife—in the prime of life, a man who may have been a miner, a shipyard worker or an engineer, a manual worker for his living, to live year after year either on 18s., 20s. or 22s. a week. The tragedy of unemployment in our part of the country is that it is not short-term unemployment Anybody can put up with a small sum of money for a short time, but when unemployment lasts for years and years, and there seems to be little chance of any work in the future, one ought to realise, in common justice, that the standard of life cannot be maintained on such allowances. I very much hope that in the future when we are discussing the respective merits of the Socialist party and the present National Government, we shall forget about politics and come down to real facts.
That brings me to another point. There has been a certain amount of anxiety and apprehension in my part of the world as to the physical condition of the men and women who have passed through this long period of unemployment. The week before last I asked the Minister of Health whether he was prepared to institute an inquiry into the condition of the people
in Northumberland. If the physical deterioration is not apparent, if there is no physical deterioration, then surely there is no reason why we should not have such an inquiry. The Minister replied that he had got reports from the medical officers of health. I am perfectly certain that in our part of the world we have got the most adequate medical officers of health, but there are other people—there are matrons of the maternity homes to which the women go, there are the panel doctors, there are hundreds of societies which are trying to protect the interests of the people suffering such acute distress and hardship who might with confidence be consulted, and I would impress on the Minister that if there is no physical deterioration we have nothing to be worried about, but if there is the chance that the very flower of our country, the people whose industry has made this country famous throughout the world, are losing their physical capacity for work, it is up to this Government to face the facts frankly. I press on the Minister most urgently that in order to reassure the House, and to reassure us who are responsible for these people, steps should be taken through an appropriate inquiry to find out the actual position.
I apologise to the Minister for not being present during the whole of his speech, but I am led to understand that he has asked for an additional sum of money for training and reconditioning the unemployed. I congratulate him very Sincerely on that determination, but I want him to go very much further. I understand that the camp at Kielder in Northumberland was specially mentioned, and I wish to ask him how many of the thousands of people in my division will be reconditioned in that camp? I think I am right in saying that probably it will be a very small percentage. I want the National Government to be brave and to produce something which is really worth while. I suggest that we should take all the young men between the ages of 16 and 25 who are available for transitional payment, young men who have not had the opportunity of learning any trade, and I would make it compulsory that they should go to a first-class training camp for six months. I would feed them well. I would make them do forestry, teach them how to
cultivate allotments, and I would have the finest people in the country to teach them to play organised games. It would give them something to think about, give them some vision and give them some imagination. I would also give them a certain amount of pocket money, because I do not think it would be good for those youths to be entirely dependent on their parents, or, for that matter, in a camp of that kind, on the State, for every single penny they want. When they return to their homes I would give them their National Health and Unemployment Insurance cards stamped to date. I know that a suggestion of this kind will probably meet with the fiercest opposition. There is a certain section of trade union leaders—

Mr. BATEY: Hear, hear!

Miss WARD: My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) says, "Hear, hear." My answer to that would be that I would fight the trade unions. Though the political trade unionists might disagree with that policy, I am quite certain that the Majority of trade union leaders, concerned about the discipline of the young unemployed men, who do not know what it is to have discipline, do not know what it is to be organised, who have never had a chance of earning anything for themselves, would welcome the proposal; and incidentally, also, I believe the parents of those young men would be only too thankful to have them properly fed, housed and looked after. When those young men came back from camp I believe they would be better, happier and more contented for having been to camp and have learned something from the good, hard physical exercises and the happy comradeship which I know they would have there.
We have waited a long time in the North of England, and we want something. We want the Government to give us some bold policy, even if it does not meet with the approval of all the people throughout the country. Those in my part of the world would rather the Government made a mistake than that they should go on pretending that everything in the garden is lovely, when, in fact, it is too frightful for words. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary winds up the Debate he will not give us an
ordinary Ministerial reply. We want something a little more definite, we want to be heartened and encouraged, and I believe that if the Government adopt a forward policy all moderate opinion throughout the country will be solidly behind them.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No one could have heard the last speech without recognising that it was a very fine effort, and I would add that it had some originality and some courage about it. I do not propose to follow the hon. Lady, although I ought to say, as to her suggestion about compulsory labour, that Conservatives must not condemn a thing in one country and then demand it in their own country. They cannot attack Russia for compulsory labour, and then advocate compulsory labour in Britain and think it is something different. I do not want to engage in controversy with the hon. Lady for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). I say it was compulsory labour that was advocated. The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) said that she would make it compulsory.

Miss WARD: Training.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Well, compulsory training. You would send them to camp to work. They would have to work.

Miss WARD: May I put the hon. Member on the right track?—I did not say "compulsory labour." I said that I would have these young men taken compulsorily to camp for reconditioning and for putting them into a sound condition.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. lady said "compulsory." What is compulsory training? She is not going to take them there and give them money for a holiday; she is going to make them work. I have been at most of the reconditioning centres in Scotland and in England, and the men have to work. You may call it training, or labour, or work, or whatever you like, but it means compulsorily making them work, and I am only saying, apart from the merits of the thing, that people cannot condemn other countries for compelling their people to labour if they advocate the same thing here. The hon. Lady must also face two other facts. For what are they to be trained? I hope the hon. Lady will not think me un-
generous to her or unsympathetic, but after taking part in Debates here for 11 years some phrases are irksome to me. They sound admirable, but I always ask myself, "What does the phrase mean?" What is this training for? If it is to be of any use it must be objective. Are they to be trained to be miners, building trade workers, engineers or shipbuilders? If it is training, and the choice were offered to me, I would prefer that they should be put into ordinary Government Departments and trained, or even into private employment, because there they would have some acquaintance with the realities of ordinary everyday conditions of human life.
They are to have six months' training, and what is to happen at the end of it? I often see people taken from their slums and moved to decent homes, and I have often felt that the tragedy was worse because they could not be kept there and, after a year, had to be chased back. That was worse than being allowed to live in their slums. Can the hon. Lady say what is to happen at the end of the six months' training? Are they to be hauled back and allowed to drift again? The whole position is not met by some form of training that moves men about as in a game of chess. The idea that the working people need training is fundamentally wrong. I live in a Division that is packed full of poverty. Bad as conditions are in Wallsend, they are worse in my Division. It always was poor. As I have known it, Since I was born in it 40 years ago, it has been poverty-stricken. Wallsend has not been so. I remember Wallsend as a prosperous place.
My proposal is that you should give men an income. Give the ordinary unemployed man a decent income, and he will train. The marvellous thing about the unemployed is how little Government help they need. I have watched them at the Exchanges. I live near to one of the biggest Employment Exchanges Scotland, and I see men every day doing things for which in my youth they would have been sneered at. I see them with perambulators outside the Exchange and on the Exchange doorstep, when they are going in to sign. Watch the young men. I want to refer to the hon. Member who is a doctor, and who is very keen about the question of liquor. Look at the facts about drink. [Interruption.] This is
not a matter for cheap joking about somebody else. None of us is too free. If some of us have faults, they can be balanced against the faults of others. I have not been too critical of others. I have too many faults myself to throw too many bricks about, but my faults are transparent and honest; others are more capable of hiding them. Look at the facts about drink and about sex crimes. What you notice every day in that respect, in the City of Glasgow, is that there is a diminution. The character and the training of the men are better. They do not need herding about.
I am the chairman of a trade-union of which one-third of the members are now unemployed. They are decent men. Give them an income; they will train. They will play football, they will dig their gardens, or they will play music. Give them the opportunity to do these things, and they will do them; the idea that you should herd men is, from some angles, wrong. The finest thing is to keep them in some way concerned with the female sex and with their mothers and sisters. When you move men for six months again from the influence of their mothers and sisters, the six months is often shockingly wrongly wasted. I say that, as one who was brought up to be as wild as ever a man could be, at the age named by the hon. Lady, but who would have been wilder beyond recall if it had not been for the kindly and humane influence of the other sex, at that age. To herd men is wrong. These men make their own training for themselves. I see an hon. Member who sits for a Welsh division. When I went there, what struck me in that division was the way in which decent miners were walking up hills to play games and to read. I saw them in on: town in his division sitting in a hall reading, the Bible, I think, studying a question of religion.
Let me take another aspect of this matter. I agree with the hon. Lady in her criticism of the means test. Once you engage in the means test, I cannot see how you are to draw the line. The administration of the means test means that once you embark upon it you have either to have no means test or a strict means test. This may be looked upon as a defence of the means test, but I say that the means test was not put on by the present Government because they
are inhuman. I do not believe that of the men who occupy that bench. I have a regard for the Minister. I do not believe that anybody in the House has not. I have a regard for him that few men have. He did not put on the means test, along with others of his colleagues—say, the Minister of Agriculture, whom I have known for many years—because they are inhuman. Do not think that the Prime Minister suddenly became an inhuman man when he went to that side, from being a human man when he was here. That would be an insult to every one of them. I am sure that my Labour colleagues will agree with me. What made them do it? It was money—finance. If they could give the things, they would do so. In the main, they put on the means test because it saved money. That was the reason.
If you are going to have a means test you must save. If you do not save, then the argument of the hon. Lady about demarcations falls. You have either to have a means test that is mean, or no means test. I live in the City of Glasgow. What are the facts there? The public assistance officer went into the matter and found the number of people whom he and I would exclude, all of moderate means, but if you were excluding them, it would mean that the means test would not be worth running. Suppose you fixed an income of £2 a week untouchable. That is not a high income. Nobody would say that it is too much to fix that income in Glasgow. You immediately affect every female worker and the great bulk of the men, and the result is that you get no income. The cost of administration is high, and if you are to get your administration costs you must have a test that is mean and comparatively inadequate. You are saving now, and you must save, if you are to run it. Supporters of the Government must face the fact that it is going to be mean.
There is the question of the ex-service men, about whom the hon. Lady spoke so well and eloquently. I think that it is awfully unjust that a reservist's pension should have been cut 25 per cent. Do not let us forget that the only person who has had a cut of more than 10 per cent., in this country, is the reservist. The teacher, the Member of Parliament, and the police, as well as other classes have had a cut of 10 per cent., but the
reservist has suffered a cut of 25 per cent., from 1s. a day to 9d. It hurts him, because he gets his 9d. a day in quarterly sums. He has £3 10s. handed to him; in the meantime, his wife has mortgaged the quarter's rent. She gets no unemployment benefit for the period, yet she has to pay the rent, and the result is that she is forced into a terrible position. If the money were paid each week they might have some method of looking after it, but as it comes each quarter, the result is a terrible hardship. I agree with the Minister that the officials of the Employment Exchanges are decent. I often feel that I am unjust to them. I go to the Exchange every week, and I shout and roar, and I bully them. I curse, and I often swear at them. [Interruption.] Yes, I do. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth would not do that. She would do it more genteelly; but the effect would be the same. She would frighten them and annoy them.

Viscountess ASTOR: Yes.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I know her well, and she would probably frighten them more than I do. They are decent and civil. The problem with which we are faced to-day concerns the 3,000,000 unemployed men who have no training or anything else. You may talk round it, but I want to see even 100 or 1,000 men assisted. I do not mind your reducing the hours of labour, but even when you reduce the hours of labour you are still faced with the problem of the development of the machine, which still goes on. The great thing before the House of Commons, the one overwhelming problem, is not how to see that men are kept and trained, but how men and women can get enough to keep and train themselves. I want to see the hours of labour readjusted. I cannot understand the philosophy that keeps men working 40, 50 or 52 hours a week, when there are men getting no work at all. I cannot understand why one (man should work too long and another man should work too little. I cannot understand the brains that have conquered the air and created science, but cannot conquer the elementary principle of one man doing too much and another man too little. I often think that we, who are entrusted with the affairs of the nation, might apply our minds to it.
One of the first problems is so to regulate labour that those engaged in it shall not be asked to undertake more than they should undertake, while other men are denied the right to share it with them. The Minister says that we have the problem of international trade. After all, a nation is not run in compartments. The right hon. Gentleman says you may ruin your trade with America, but in running a nation, when one man's hours are reduced another man takes his place. The sum total of the wealth of your nation remains the same. I cannot see how your volume of trade or industry could thereby be affected.
The only thing is, how are you to increase your unemployment benefit. You talk to-day about putting 100,000 men into training. Talk of taking another quarter of a million and doing what you like with them; talk about your road schemes and other things—there still remains, as a residue, the biggest part of the 2,500,000 who are unemployed. To them unemployment benefit is their wages. It is not transitional or standard benefit; it is wages, their income and their life. For the House of Commons to keep children living on 2s. a week is indefensible. We pass a Rent Bill asking these men to pay rent nearly 50 per cent. more than they have been paying. For the House of Commons to do that is wrong. It may be said that the country is not well off, that we are poorer than we were. I do not quite agree with that, although every hon. Member impresses upon me that it is right. Assume that we are not so well off, and no longer the wealthy nation we were, I still say that there is something horrible about asking the 2,500,000 unemployed people to carry the burden. Why should they have been picked out? Really it is not they, but their children who are picked out. It is the sons of the unemployed that remain unemployed. It sentences them for ever to nothing. It is not decent, and it is inhuman to ask this section to go on indefinitely—to suffer for 10 years, and then continue to suffer.
I want to thank the Minister for a small concession, granted to me after two years of painful and constant agitation. It has been granted with regard to sick men. A man who is sick, and has gone off sickness benefit on to unemploy-
ment benefit, used to be subject to a gap of three or four days. The Government have now taken steps to remedy that, after two years of hammering, and insistence. This small concession is welcome in these days, because I have practically given up hope of getting much. When I see the smallest thing coming it seems a lot to me. I have little hope from this Government, or any Government. I can only see the tragedy of the matter. We are told of the peacefuiness of the unemployed. To mo that is a tragedy. They have become so terribly depressed that they are losing their spirit to rebel. That is a terrible human tragedy.
I do not know whether others see it as I see it. My wife and I were born among them. It is just by accident that she and I have an income. I often look at my wife, possibly the kindest soul ever man had. I say to myself, "How would you like her to be treated as an unemployed man's wife is treated?" I would hate it. We have no right to treat another man's wife as we would not like our own wives treated. I say to the Minister that he is entrusted with the biggest task of all—the maintenance and care of human beings. These men were ready in time of war to give their lives, and would do it again. Surely during the coming months the Minister of Labour, and his colleagues, should bend themselves to the only task worth while—seeing that these millions are at least treated in a human and proper fashion.

7.7 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) ended up with a word of praise for the National Government. It was generous of him, and I think that in some ways they deserve it. I believe that the best thing that followers of the National Government can do is to make speeches such as we have had from the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward). We know that there is no Minister of Labour who has been keener about his job than the present one. We are not helping him if we sit quite silent. If we are to have a forward policy we must push it on. It is one mistake of supporters of the present Government that they feel it is wrong to criticise the National Government. There is no Minister, who wishes to get
on, who is not really helped if Members get up and state their opinions. I am sure that the hon. Member who has just spoken completely mistook the desire of the hon. Lady. Her plan was much the same as that of the Leader of the Opposition who said that if he had his way he would compel young men to go into camp and get proper training.

Mr. LANSBURY: No, I said work.

Viscountess ASTOR: The hon. Gentleman is complaining because it is to be work. What the hon. Lady means, and what I think we all mean, is that in this national emergency we have got to do something about our juvenile unemployed. They are increasing every year. Owing to the large increase in the birth rate 14 or 15 years ago we may, in 1937, have about 600,000 juveniles unemployed. The hon. Member says that they should be trained privately. It is not a question of private training; it is literally a question of hanging round street corners. There is no right-minded parent who would not rather have his boys and girls receive some sort of regulated training. I do hope the Leader of the Opposition will assist the Government. The Government ought to have an emergency plan. At present, it is just piecemeal the way they are going on, and time is passing. One of the tragedies—and the Minister of Labour knows it—is that children between 14 and 16 are getting work, but the moment they come on unemployment insurance they go out.
Something should be done at once. We ought to raise the school age, and lower the insurance age. Then we might have some control. The Minister does not know how many children there are out of work. He knows little about the conditions of children in unregulated trades. He made a spirited reply about Mr. Tom Shaw, and the conditions are better in this country than in any country in the world, on the whole. I should think there are some States of America where the conditions are far worse. But I am not concerned with American legislation. I have lived in England longer than in America, and I know more about England. The Minister of Labour knows that there are children in unregulated trades working 10, 12 or 14 hours a day. That is the kind of thing the Government should think about. They ought to have a big, bold plan with regard to hours of work,
and prevent employers taking on children at 14 and turning them out at 16.
This idea of training, I think, has not been thought out. If the Government are not doing it, the House of Commons ought to do it. If the Government will not work, we ought to do so. Every country with this great problem has been doing something. We, who are more progressive than any other country as far as social legislation is concerned, are lagging behind. I hope that the Minister will realise that the speech made by the hon. Lady is the sort of speech which is being made all over the country. We have trade union opposition. What does that mean? We have had trade union opposition to all progressive legislation. We have to get over trade unions or we shall not get anywhere. We would have had many more people in the building trade years ago if we had not had trade unions. I rejoice that trade unions are going down, because working men are beginning to see that they are restricting industry. We will not be frightened by them. The Minister said something about setting up trade boards in two trades. Will he consider setting up a catering board which is badly needed? The Labour Government did not do it.

Mr. LAWS0N: The investigation was stopped.

Viscountess ASTOR: You were a long time.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg the Noble Lady's pardon. The Labour Government were fought in the courts by the catering interests.

Viscountess ASTOR: I quite agree, but that was not Conservatives; it was the catering interest. That is why I hope the National Government will set up trade boards. I am perfectly certain that if the House knew the catering conditions, hon. Members would ask for such a board. We never get a lead from the Government, they are so timorous. They are doing splendidly natioNaily, but they should be a little more forward socially. With regard to these training camps, we can keep the minds and bodies of these boys from going to rack and ruin. That is what is literally happening. I appeal to the Minister and to the House not to be so passive. We are not helping the National Government by that; they will become as bad as the late Labour Gov-
ernnent, who never said a word, because they were afraid that, if they did, they would be turned out. Do not let us do that; let us begin to press the Government, and see that within the next year we have some plan for our juveniles. We must be prepared for a great increase in their number, and we may have to raise the school age and lower the age of insurance, but let us do something; do not let us sit still and wait for a better day. The Minister knows that, if we had 15 speeches like that of the hon. Member for Wallsend, the Government would begin to move; Governments do not move unless they are pushed. I hope and pray that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to what has been said, and take it to heart.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: The Noble Lady began by thanking the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for complimenting the Government, but she ended her speech in a way that was the reverse of complimentary to the Government. She seemed to forget that the beginning of her speech was altogether different from the end. The speech of the hon. Member for Wall-send (Miss Ward) was a most important one. I am sorry that this Debate has to be interrupted at 7.30, because the hon. Member for Wallsend, backed by the Noble Lady, has given the Committee a most important topic for discussion.
With all that the hon. Member said in regard to the means test, I, as one who also comes from a distressed area, thoroughly agree, but what effect would a speech on the means test have on the Minister? I remember so many of these Debates. Only to-day I was wondering how many Debates on unemployment there have been in the House during the last 10 years. They all seemed to end alike, and we never seemed to get any further. When one thinks of the little progress that results from Debates on unemployment, one is hardly surprised that there should be attacks upon Parliamentary Government, and that so many people should be falling away from democatic and Parliamentary Government and losing heart in it. When, however, the hon. Member for Wallsend suggests that young men from 18 to 25 should be put into a camp, I strongly disagree with her. If she thought that the political trade
unionists would disagree with her in that, she was right; I cannot understand any trade unionist not opposing it most bitterly.

Viscountess ASTOR: The Leader of the Opposition would not.

Mr. BATEY: Oh, yes, he would; I remember what he said.

Mr. J. JONES: Would you like your sons to go into a compulsory labour camp?

Mr. BATEY: I know of no trade unionist, I know of no member of the Labour party, who would not bitterly oppose such a proposal. It is surprising how new ideas come into being. I was reading in the newspaper only a week ago that Hitler was going to form a labour army like this, starting at the age of 18, and to use this labour army in making war. I wonder if that is where the hon. Member for Wallsend got her new idea from? Are we to understand that she is in favour of Hitlerism? This idea is not new at all; it is an idea that we have been afraid of.
The Minister of Labour was more cautious. When he was speaking of the new Bill that is to be introduced, he said that the proposal was to deal with the unemployed by training, by occupation, and by recreation. I understand training and recreation, but I do not understand what he meant by occupation. Had the Minister in mind what the hon. Member for Wallsend said more bluntly—that he is going to deal with the unemployed by putting them into an army that will not merely be in a camp, but can be used for labour purposes? The hon. Member for Wallsend seemed to suggest that that was necessary for the training of these men, but I should like to ask her some questions. I have a good knowledge of her division; I was born there. May I ask her what young men of 18 who are miners need training? What young men in the shipyards need training? What young men in any of the trades in the Wallsend Division need training? None of them need training, and the proposal is left in all its nakedness; what some of our friends want is a conscript labour army, with which they will be able to deal at their own sweet will. The hon. Member for Wallsend suggested that they would be given pocket-money.
The Minister of Labour said this afternoon that he was asking for an increased amount of no less than £800,000 for training. When he talks about putting these trainees in camps to deal with forestry, one can understand it, but when he goes beyond that, and proposes to put them to learn trades, it leaves me cold. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a far better way of spending this £800,000, which is not a small sum, would be to abolish the means test and give the proper unemployment benefit to those who are on transitional payment. I do not know why the Minister has this idea of training so fixed in his mind. Throughout his whole speech to-day he seemed to regard training as the chief and the best thing that the Ministry of Labour could do. In my opinion it is one of the things that the Ministry of Labour might well leave alone. What they ought to do first and foremost is this: The Unemployment Insurance Fund was started in order to relieve unemployment, to pay men benefit when they were unemployed; and that should be done first. The spending of money upon anything else should only come after those who are unemployed have been paid their benefit.
That leads me to ask one or two questions on the Estimates. I notice that the amount that is to be paid for the removal of workers is being cut down from £57,000, as it was last year, to £39,000—a reduction of £18,000. I consider this to be a wise spending of money, a much better way than spending it on training, because, where a worker has been unemployed for several years and all his resources have gone, even if he can find employment in another part of the country he cannot go to it—he cannot remove his furniture and take his family there. I think it is unwise of the Ministry of Labour to cut down this figure for the removal of workers. Why is it being done? Is it thought that there will be no need for the money, that people will not be able to get work in other parts of the country; or is it simply a question of economy and penalising the workers?
I want also to draw attention to the fact that the cost of courts of referees, which last year was £124,000, is reduced this year to £50,000. The Minister of Labour did not say anything about that in his speech, and I think that, if he has
an opportunity to reply to-night, he should tell us the reason for this very large reduction of £74,000. Unless the work has decreased, it seems to suggest that there will be a great danger of men not being able to get before the courts of referees. I cannot imagine any reduction being made in the fees of the chairmen or members of the courts, so one can only conclude that a lot of the courts are to be closed. If that is so, it will be a real hardship upon unemployed men who have to go to the courts of referees. With regard to the item:
Grants for assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons,
this is put in rather misleading words, because what one would understand from it is that the £10,000 that was given last year to the National Council for Social Service is to be increased this year to £25,000. I think the Minister should tell us the reason for that increase for this charity organisation. We object to the unemployed being linked to any charity organisation, and we opposed the giving of £10,000 to the National Council for Social Service.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL (By Order.)

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."

7.30 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
I should like to ask you, Sir, whether we can discuss at the same time the Commercial Gas Bill, which is in the same stage, or whether the discussion will be restricted to the first Measure?

Mr. SPEAKER: If it meets the convenience of the House, there is no objection to discussing both Bills together.

Mr. McENTEE: I think it would be for the convenience of the House, as the principle in both is exactly the same although the area covered is very different. The Gas Light and Coke Company's Bill covers an extremely wide area and a very large number of local authorities. The area, I believe, is approximately 540 square miles, and, if the Bill becomes law, 80 is the number of local authorities with varying kinds of interest, and all of them, no doubt, with housing estates would be restricted. It may be that some of them will be owners of electricity undertakings and some of gas undertakings. Some of them probably own neither, but in all cases the power sought by the gas company within the area of supply is the Same.
The conditions that are now sought to be imposed on the local authorities have no parallel in any other Bill that at any time has been passed by this House. It is asserted in some of the literature that has been sent out by the National Gas Council that the principle is the same as that in the Kettering Bill which was passed through the House some time ago. In a certain restricted sense it is the same, but it covers a very much wider area and in some respects is very different. The Kettering Bill was restricted to the area covered by the Kettering Council. The Kettering Council was an electricity-owning authority and, prior to the passing of this Bill, so seriously restricted the use of gas in its area that it was neither allowed for lighting, heating or power. That was an exceptional case in many ways. But that cannot be said for the powers that are sought by either of the Bills that we are now considering. In the first place, the authorities in many cases do not own electricity undertakings at all. In some cases they have a limited restriction. They allow gas in their houses in some cases for heating purposes or cooking purposes only, in some for heating and cooking, and in a very small number they do not permit use of gas for any purpose at all, so that there cannot be said to be any similarity between the conditions that applied when the House was considering the Kettering Bill and the conditions that apply in the area that it is proposed to control by the present Bill.
It is sought in these Bills to take away from the local authorities the power that
was imposed on them by the Housing Act, 1925, and other Housing Acts. Under those Acts, it is definitely imposed as a duty that they shall control and maintain the houses that they build and it is now sought to take that power from them. The actual wording of the 1925 Act is that the
general management, regulation and control of the dwelling-houses provided by the local authority under this part of this Act or any Act repealed by this Act shall be vested in or exercised by the local authority.
I should like to ask the Ministry of Health, which is responsible for seeing that this Section is carried out, how it is possible to carry it out if a private company can take away the power that was conferred on the local authority by Act of Parliament and use it itself for private gain. It is a very serious thing indeed, when Parliament, after very many months' consideration, finds it necessary to confer powers, duties and responsibilities on a local council, that a private company should come along and ask to be permitted, for private gain, to take away the power and the responsibility imposed on local authorities in the 1925 and other Acts of Parliament. I hope that the House is not going to permit that kind of thing in the interests of a private company.
There is another extremely important thing that the House ought to note. It is suggested that the council shall no longer have the power to determine what kind of light, heat and power shall be used in their houses and in any building under their control. It may be that some of the buildings controlled by local authorities will become from time to time redundant for the purpose for which they were origiNaily required, and that they will desire to let them to someone else. The usual thing in a case like that is to insert a clause in the lease reserving to the owner the right to say whether any structural alterations shall be made and stipulating that such structural alterations can only be made with the consent of the owner. Under these Bills it would not be possible for any council in circumstances such as those that I have described to do such a thing. Let us say, for instance, that it was desired to put into a building which had been leased by a council to a private person a gas engine or an electrical transformer,
and that structural alterations were necessary for the purpose. If the Bills become law, the council will have no power to prevent such structural alterations, although there might be a clause in the lease giving them power to determine whether or not such structural alteration should be made. That, again, is a point of importance in which the existing law itself is apparently to be passed over in the interests of a private firm.
This new power and new restriction which is to be imposed by the gas companies is not to be a general power or a general restriction. It is not to be a power given to them in respect to large blocks of privately-owned houses or flats or any other kind of privately-owned business. The private owner is still to be free. No owner of a private building or housing estate would tolerate for a moment the interference of a gas or electricity undertaking as to what he should do or permit or refuse in regard to the amenities of lighting and heating within his buildings. Every private owner of houses would bitterly resent the interference of any gas or electricity company that came to Parliament and suggested that it should be given power, irrespective of the wishes of the private owner, just at the request of the tenants, to come in, pull the building about and insert gas or electricity against his will because some tenant had expressed a desire to have it instead of whatever other form of lighting or heating there might be.
This House is supposed to represent the public interests of the people. We are dealing here with public property and we are the people responsible for the maintenance of that public property. Parliament and the local authorities have subsidised the building of the houses, and Parliament has determined the means by which they are to be managed. They are publicly owned and up till now they have been managed by the public in the public interest. Now, private enterprise comes along and says. "We see a good picking to be made out of the change in the form of management, and we seek an opportunity to go into those houses at the request of a tenant and exploit them for our private gain." I hope Parliament will not permit any such thing to be done. There are many local authorities which do not own either a gas undertaking or an electricity under-
taking, and a large number within the are a which this Bill seeks to control are in that position.
Everybody knows that in regard to the lighting and heating of houses that there is a very good bargaining weapon when you come to the two undertakings, the privately-owned gas company, and the privately-owned electricity undertaking. It is said: "Here is a large estate which we are building. What can you do for us in the interests of the town and of the tenants?" I have had experience, as, no doubt, have many other hon. Members, of the competition existing between two organisations of that kind in those circumstances. As a result of the bargaining power which the circumstances provide, local councils have been able to set one undertaking in competition with the other, and the result has been a very good bargain for the tenants and for the local authorities. That bargaining power is to be taken away from them now, because the gas companies will have the right in a Parliamentary Bill which, it is hoped, will become an Act of Parliament, if a tenant expresses a desire to have gas in his house, to say that gas shall be placed there.
The same right, it is true, would be given to a privately-owned electricity undertaking in similar circumstances. But the same right will not be given to publicly-owned electricity undertakings. Those undertakings are to be seriously restricted. The local authority is to have no say, once the tenant expresses a desire for either gas or electricity in his house, as to which form of power shall be permitted. If a company sought the right to interfere with private property, as it is now sought by this company to interfere with council property, there is not a Member in the House who would vote for it. When dealing with legislation, hon. Members are prepared to give certain privileges and rights to private companies, but if it affected their own private interests, they would not for a moment concede those privileges. I ask the House, which is theoretically responsible for the public wellbeing—and we are the custodians of the public purse—to see to it that the public purse and the expenditure out of it are retained under public control, and that privileges are not given to a private company to exploit the public purse for private gain.
I am not much concerned about the merits of gas or electricity. I have no personal interest in either. I have had experience of both, and my experience teaches me that for every purpose electricity is very much better. Having had that experience, I should not think of going back to the use of gas for any purposes in my household at the present time. I recognise that there are certain purposes for which gas may be said to be superior to electricity. For cooking purposes it is somewhat cheaper, but I doubt if there is any other argument one could bring in its favour. From the point of view of public health, it is certainly not as good as electricity. If the House passes these Bills, it will impose a very greatly increased expenditure on local authorities in regard to the maintenance of public health. Anybody who has had experience of gas knows that the maintenance of rooms in which you have gas lighting is much greater than is the case if the lighting is by electricity. Everybody will admit that fact. Why should Parliament impose upon a local authority a set of conditions which hon. Members would not accept as individual Members? I doubt if there is a Member in the House who, if he had the choice of using either gas or electricity for lighting purposes, would choose to use gas, you are not asking the right to use both. [An HON. MEMBER: "Either."] You are asking the right to use either. [An HON. MEMBER: "Both."] If the hon. Member wants to use both he is financially better off than I am.

Mr. THORNE: I am using both.

Mr. J. JONES: I am using both too.

Mr. McENTEE: You are not very much better off.

Mr. JONES: We are in the same position as you are.

Mr. McENTEE: I am surprised that interjections of this kind come from people who talk so much about the right of the public to control their own property.

Mr. J. JONES: We do, and we will tell you later on why

Mr. McENTEE: No doubt Mr. Speaker will give the hon. Member an opportunity later on, and in the meantime I have a right to protection. I hope that I may at least show courtesy in disagreeing with hon. Members on the other side. I am arguing against the Bill, because I believe in public enterprise. I am prepared to make sacrifices in the interests of public enterprise. I never allow private interests to interfere with my beliefs and principles. I see here an attempt by a private company to use public property for private gain. There is no question at all about it. There is only one purpose behind the Bill. Are the companies so concerned about the well-being of tenants that they want to give them gas so that they shall be properly heated in the winter? We hear a good deal about the poor tenants who in the winter time find that electricity is not so heating as gas, and the companies are coming along to their aid purely as philanthropists with a desire to benefit those very poor people and give them the opportunity of having something which is a little warmer in winter time than electricity. To talk in that way is sheer nonsense. The only thing behind the proposal is to make more profit, and my desire is to prevent a private company from exploiting public services which have been built up by the public and paid for by the public.
I hope that the House will not sanction that for which the Bill asks. The other Bill is a much more restrictive Bill both in area and in the number of local authorities it covers, but still it covers a very wide and important area, including some of the London boroughs and county boroughs, and an important area of the London County Council. I am not blaming the gas companies. They are privately-owned concerns, and it is to their interest to use all the power they can obtain either in Parliament or outside in order to get as good a return for their money as possible. But I ask those who are responsible for the public well-being and who have been elected to this House to look after the public purse and to see that the money expended by Parliament is controlled by the public, not to hand over powers to private control for private gain. That is the reason I am moving the rejection of the two Bills, and I hope that the House will reject them. It has been said that these companies employ a
very large number of men. So does every company. They do not employ men because they love them any more than they put gas in a house because they love the tenants. They employ men for precisely the same reason they wish to put gas into the houses, namely, to make profit and to get as big a return as possible. The House should remember that electricity companies also employ men, and that as far as employment is concerned there is very little to choose between them. In any case, I do not think that it is a good argument to say that because a certain undertaking employs more men than another the public health and well-being and the rights of the public should be sacrificed, and that the cost of maintenance in the houses should be increased out of all proportion. I hope that the House will reject the two Bills for the reasons I have given, and for other reasons which, no doubt, will be given by subsequent speakers.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so formally.

7.57 p.m.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I understand that it is customary for the Chairman of the Private Bill Committee, when a decision of that Committee is challenged in a subsequent stage on the Floor of the House, to explain the reasons which led the Committee to reach its decision. The learned Gentleman who expounded the Bill to the Committee upstairs took sir hours in delivering his opening speech, but I will endeavour to occupy far less time. I think that the House should very carefully consider the position before it rejects the Bill at this stage. It passed the Second Reading on the Floor of the House without any discussion, and Since then the Committee have sat for nine days on the Bill. Very large sums of money must have been spent, and the House ought to think very carefully indeed—I am not at the moment denying its right to reject a Bill at any stage— before rejecting a Bill which has reached the present stage. I ask hon. Members to listen to what the Bill actually proposes. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) about powers conferred upon gas companies, about the extension of private enterprise and vested interests, and other
matters of that kind, and I will tell the House what the operative Clause of the Bill provides:
The housing authority shall not in or in connection with the selling leasing letting or other disposal of any house shop office warehouse or other building or any lands for the time being belonging or leased to them within the limits of supply—

(a) make or impose any term condition or restriction with respect to—

(i) the form of light heat power or energy to be supplied to or used in any such house shop office warehouse or other building or on any such lands or in any building erected on any such lands; or
(ii) the taking from any particular local authority company body or person of any form of light heat power or energy; or
(b) give any preference or priority to any person on account of his taking or agreeing to take or subject to any prejudice or disadvantage any person not taking or not agreeing to take a supply of light heat power or energy of any particular form or from any particular local authority company body or person."
That is the operative Clause of the Bill. It confers no powers of any kind whatever on the gas company. The Bill merely gives to the occupier of a council house the right to consume what form of light, heat, power or energy he desires. We have heard about powers conferred on gas companies. It must be obvious that unless a consumer wishes to burn gas no Act of Parliament can compel him to burn one single them or cubic foot, or whatever it may be. This Bill does no more than give to the tenants of council houses the right to have gas. The Committee were most careful before they reached their decision to make sure that no interference with what may be called the good practice of housing estates would be allowed. I will explain what that practice usually has been. When local authorities have been developing a housing estate they have used the force of competition in order to secure the best terms possible from both gas and electricity companies, in order to secure a service for the houses they were building. They have in most cases been able to secure that the gas company will lay on a supply of gas to the houses free, and in many cases they have been able to secure a similar service from the electricity company. Not in many cases but in some cases they have been able to secure favourable terms and reduced rates for the supply of electricity from
the electricity undertaking on condition of reserving the ceiling space for electricity.
The Committee were most careful to make sure that that practice would not in any way be interfered with by the Bill. To make things doubly sure the committee inserted a proviso making it clear that the practice in regard to ceiling spaces should not be interfered with. There is no question whatever of conferring powers on the gas undertaking. There is no question at all of public enterprise as against private enterprise. Those questions do not arise. All that will happen is that tenants who have been denied the right to a supply of gas will in future be protected, and that those who desire to secure gas from the gas company will in future be able to secure it. The case presented by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill is something of an inversion. He talked about conferring powers on a gas undertaking, about the principle of private enterprise as against public enterprise. There are Members of this House who live on the Westminster Estate. If the Duke of Westminster refused to allow tenants to have gas in their houses in order that they might be compelled to take the electricity supplied by him, I wonder whether the hon. Member would feel that that was a legitimate use of powers. But that is a parallel.
It is not contended for a moment by the promoters of the Bill that a Majority, or even a substantial number, of local authorities, have made any improper use of the powers which they possess. The enormous Majority have adopted a perfectly reasonable attitude and have allowed tenants a free choice as between gas and electricity, and that practice will not be interfered with in any way by this Bill. The Bill will operate in a very limited number of cases. It is contended for that reason that it should not be passed or should be limited to those authorities which have made an improper use of the powers they possess. That is a mistaken view of the case. The Truck Acts apply to every employer in the country. I do not suppose it is contended that all employers made an improper use of the powers they possessed before the passing of those Acts. The Acts are operating to-day to the disadvantage only of those employers who were making an
improper use of their powers. In the same way this Bill will in no way affect the practice of local authorities which have made a proper and reasonable use of their powers.
I reiterate that point, because if the Committee had not been absolutely convInced that the powers at present possessed by such authorities as the Westminster City Council and the London County Council would not be interfered with in any way, the Committee would certainly have amended the Bill. It is because we were convInced that the sound and proper practice will not be interfered with that the Committee passed the Bill. On that Committee, apart from other Members, there was a Member of the Labour party who, I say with all respect, is as senior and as experienced and as highly respected as the hon. Member who has moved the rejection of the Bill. There is no question here of the rival merits of gas or electricity. People sometimes prefer the one and sometimes the other. I believe that the Majority of householders prefer electricity for lighting purposes and gas for cooking and heating because it is cheaper. There are some who prefer gas for all purposes. But that does not concern the Bill or the House. What seemed reasonable to the Committee was that people should have what they wanted. There have been cases where housing authorities have used their powers in a most arbitrary way. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite are prepared to defend the action of a borough council which, in order to push the sale of its own electricity, filled with cement the gas pipes in the council houses? That has really happened. In another case gas fixtures were forcibly removed from council houses. Then there was the case of a gas company which offered to lay pipes to an estate, but the Housing Committee of the Corporation wrote:
In reply to yours, I am obliged for your letter of the 24th inst., but, as you know, the corporation has its awn electricity undertaking and therefore does not propose to instal gas in the new flats.
That is not a proper use of the powers of a local authority. The Bill confers no new powers upon the Gas Company. I think the hon. Member's description of the Gas Company as seeking private profit only is hardly fair to a very great undertaking like the Gas Light and Coke Company. That company has a certain
statutory limitation, and it can increase its dividend only on a reduction of the price of gas to its consumers. That is a point of some importance. It means that the increased use of gas and the consequent cheapening of it benefit the whole of the gas-consuming population of London. That is an additional reason why the House should pass the Bill. The House should have no hesitation in deciding that the Bill is a reasonable Bill.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. THORNE: I rise to support the Bill. There is not much left for me to say after the speech of the Noble Lord, who was Chairman of the Select Committee. In the first place, I want to make a declaration as an old gas worker. I made the same declaration when I took up a similar position on the Kettering Bill last year. To-night I come into conflict with comrades and companions who are members of the Parliamentary Labour party, but they know that I am a party man and have been ever Since I have been in this House, and that I endeavour as far as possible to carry out the decisions of the party. That being so, I am going to carry out the decision of the Parliamentary Labour party, which will prevent my going into the Lobby in support of the Bill. But there is nothing in the standing orders or in our constitution that prevents a member of the party from saying what he likes inside the party or this House, as long as he does not vote against the party decision. It is no good having a Government and an Opposition unless one is a party man. No Government can carry on its business unless its members and those who support it are willing to abide by the decision of the party or Government. When I disagree with my party upon principles I shall clear out of the party.
I take second place to no one in this House or outside in my stand for the socialisation of all industry. I have taken up that position ever Since the latter part of 1883, and I have never changed my opinion Since. In London we are in a very difficult position. There is no local authority in London which can take charge of the Gas Light and Coke Co., or the Commercial Gas Co., or the South Metropolitan Gas Co. I am hoping that at some time or other this Parliament or some other Parliament will take over the whole of the gasworks in London and
form a gas board similar to the board that deals with electricity and passenger transport. At present we are prevented from having the same power as many of the local authorities in provincial towns. In provincial towns the local authorities generally have the control of gas or electricity or both, and they do not make a condition that the tenant shall not have either gas or electricity. I believe that a tenant should have the right to either. If a landlord dictated to me whether I was to be allowed either gas or electricity, I should raise the same objection, although I do not say that my objection would carry much weight.
Parliament has taken away from local authorities in London and the country generally their rights in two directions. The Electricity Act of 1926 took away the power of local authorities in certain respects with regard to electricity supplies. Some of the generating stations have been shut down and the local authorities are compelled to take their electricity from the big super stations. In regard to London, the Passenger Transport Act has taken away the rights of local authorities. West Ham has controlled its own trams, and East Ham, Walthamstow, Barking and local authorities inside the London County Council area who controlled their own trams have had that power taken away. We have not now the right even to run our own trams. I am not objecting; it may be a good thing, but I am simply pointing out that that right has been taken away.
The principle for which the Gas Light and Coke Co. are asking has been conceded on two occasions. The first time that this House conceded the right now sought by the Gas Light and Coke Co. was to the Newport Corporation in 1925. Later came the case of the Kettering local authority, when the right to impose certain conditions upon tenants was taken away. So far as private enterprise is concerned, many gas companies not only in London but outside cannot raise their dividends without making a concession to the consumers. The Gas Light and Coke Co., the Commercial Gas Co., and the South Metropolitan Gas Co. and one or two other suburban gas companies cannot increase their dividends unless they concede to the consumer a reduction of one penny per therm in the price of gas.
It may be said that these gas companies are out for profit. We are all out for profit. The Electricity Board is out for profit. Those who manage London transport are out for profit. They will not run the undertaking unless it is a paying proposition and they get sufficient revenue to pay out the interests that have been taken over, and they can make a profit. I hope that the time will arrive when the idea of profit will be wiped out. I have been propagating that idea for a good number of years and I do not think I am very much further than I was when I started. That does not, however, prevent me and my colleagues from trying to change the mentality of people and to persuade them to vote for our ideas. I should like to read a minute of the London County Council, which concedes the principle asked for by the Gas Light and Coke Company, which was passed on the 7th February, 1931:
Resolved,
That as far as practicable it is desirable, provided that no additional charge on the rates is involved thereby, that equal opportunity should be given to gas companies and electricity supply authorities to instal their services in the council dwellings, and that the council tenants shall be afforded freedom of choice in the use, whenever available, of gas or electricity or both.
That is all that this Bill asks for. As vice-chairman of the Gas Joint Industrial Council, I would point out that as far back as 1929 in connection with the attitude taken up by a very large number of local authorities in putting an embargo upon tenants to prevent them using gas, the council passed a resolution, which I will not read, as it is of considerable length, which complained of the attitude of the local authorities in that respect. On that joint industrial council there are representatives from local authorities in Nottingham, Leeds, Edinburgh and other places too numerous to mention, who sit side by side with the employers in private undertakings. We are a very happy family. It is one of the best joint industrial councils in the country. It is run very cheaply. We regulate wages, hours and holidays, and that was our unanimous decision.
If the matter goes to a Division, I shall not go into the Lobby, for I do not want to be censured by my party, of which I am a loyal member. I hope the House will give the Bill a Third Reading and
concede to the company the same rights and privileges as were given to the Newport Corporation and other local authorities.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: It may be not out of place for someone attached to the Miners' Federation and who is interested in the coal trade, to take part in the discussion. I realise that the gas companies of this country are consuming substantially more coal than the electricity companies, therefore from the fact that I have a word to say about the matter, it will be self-evident to hon. Members that I am trying to take a dispassionate view. In other words, I am not endeavouring to manifest anything like a vested interest or special consideration for the industry to which I am attached. There is surely another point of view to be put. I gather that these Bills are opposed by the public authorities. They would not oppose the Bill if they had not some valid ground for doing so. I do not accept the suggestion of the Noble Lord that the gas companies are so magnanimous that they are really promoting these Bills in the interests of the few tenants to whom he referred. Surely, the Noble Lord would not want to impress that upon my mind. The gas companies may have legitimate reasons for promoting these Bills, but that is not the reason.
I presume that the local authorities are opposing the Bills because they consider that they will be detrimental to public enterprise. They are elected representatives, elected, I presume, by the tenants of these housing estates. If those tenants have any grievance to express they can express it in a vote and change the personnel of the council, thereby obtaining what they consider to be their just claims by a changed representation. They can do that if they are sufficiently vigilant and interested in public affairs. On the other hand, it may be that the local authorities are opposing the Bills on the ground that they may impair property for the protection of which they are the responsible elected persons. They have a right to express their opinion through someone in this House and that is why I intervene in the Debate. I realise that I am not expressing my interest in the coal trade, because the more gas that is consumed
more coal will be burnt and, therefore, more miners engaged. But the elected representatives of these authorities believe this is the right thing to do, and as: long as we believe in democracy we should have some consideration for their point of view and for their opposition to any measures in this House or anywhere else. It is for that reason that I oppose these Bills.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. BRIANT: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee) seems to be under a misconception so far as these Bills are concerned. He told us that electric light is much healthier than gas. I am not prepared to argue whether it is better or worse, but I am concerned with the principle that every man should have the liberty to choose what he likes. If we are to sit down and wait until someone decides on the respective values in health of everything which a person consumes, they will have something to do. I hold strongly, and I have expressed my opinion by vote on many occasions, that we have the right to interfere with the freedom of the individual when that freedom affects the health and comfort of the community. That is a principle of which I am strongly in favour, and it has been incorporated in most of our legislation. But there is a wide difference between that and interfering with the liberty of the subject when that liberty does not mean any injury or inconvenience to anyone else. Once you admit that proposal, you can interfere with every item in a person's life. It is true that in only a few cases has a municipality refused permission to use gas, and, anyone who knows the life of a working-class family will realise that this may cause a great deal of hardship. During the summer working-class families have to eat food just the same as at other times, and everyone knows that electricity for heating purposes is a great deal more expensive than gas. It only means that these poor person will not use electricity, because it is too dear. They will light a fire; and that means that a fire is going all through the hot summer day, from morning until night, and I have been in homes where, on a hot summer day, people have to live in a steamy and hot atmosphere.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), when he was Minister of Health, introduced the Housing Bill in 1930. He said that no one wanted gas for lighting purposes if they could get electricity, but they did require gas for heating purposes and for cooking. In these measures we are aiming at giving people the choice of gas for heating and cooking if they like. I have no interest in either gas or electricity, but I am interested in liberty in the home. That is a principle which hon. Members in all parts of the House will support. The State must intervene in many ways, but where State interference is unnecessary and superfluous then the State is better out of it. It cannot be said that municipalities alone are free from the vice of tyranny. I object strongly to the tyranny of the landlord. I have had to fight him when he has tried to impose tyrannous terms on his tenants, but I have never heard of a private landlord who refused to give his tenants the right to have gas if they so desired. In this case some municipalities are proposing to press their undertakings to the inconvenience and against the wishes of the tenants. That is perfectly unjustifiable. Some of my Socialist friends seem to want to make us live under conditions imposed by someone else who does not know our wants. I know my own wants. No one will contend that because a person has a gas fire in his room he is going to do any harm to anybody else. It is purely a private matter.
I am not going to flatter the gas companies, but I know of no organisation which treats their men so well, or which is so well organised. There is no set of employers which takes the same means to treat their men well, and no one therefore can say that we are throwing these people into the hands of an organisation which sweats its workers. All we are contending is that the people shall have their choice. The average man is a sensible man. He will not have gas if electricity suits him better. He knows what he wants better than anyone else, and he will have what he wants. All we say is that if he wants gas he shall have it, and that he should not be stopped by any legislation which any municipality may obtain. We do not do any good by constantly interfering in matters which do not concern us. I have fought for measures which have interfered with the
right of private individuals, and I may do so again, when I believe that such interference is for the good of the community as a whole. But I am not in favour of Government interference when the good of the community is not endangered. In many cases a working-man has gas not only for the purposes of lighting but also because he gets some heat from it. There is the workman with a litle Shop, in which there is no stove. He lights the gas, and it gives him some form of heating as well in his little workshop.
It is idle to say that gas has served its turn and is now out of date. The use of gas will go out quickly enough when people find that they can do without it. They will not want any teaching to make them give up gas for electricity if they find it is to their interests to do so. At present, electric heating is extremely dear in London, it is the most expensive form of heating, a great deal too expensive for the average person. I have been told by some sub-tenants who have electric light that they have to pay so much per week on the top of what they burn, and that it costs them much more than a coal fire or a gas fire. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West suggested that the Bill covered an area of 540 square miles. I wish it covered the whole of England and then we should avoid having these Bills protecting certain companies in certain areas. The broad principle upon which the House ought to go is the right of the individual to choose for himself and, so long as he does not offend against the laws of health or the amenities of the district to do what he likes in his own home. I resent municipalities as much as private landlords trying to exercise tyranny in matters which are only the personal concerns of the tenant.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: I happen to be one of the heretics on this occasion. I fail to understand exactly on what principle the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) moves the rejection of this Bill. London as it happens is a very peculiar place. We have recently had the London Passenger Transport Act which means the co-ordination of omnibus, tram and railway services. We have the Metropolitan Water Board covering an
area which formerly had some 14 different authorities. We are gradually coming-to the co-ordination of all public services. In this case it is not a question of electricity against gas but a question of who is to organise the supply of those services to the people.
I believe the time has come when the light, heat and power services of London should be brought under public control through some body like the Metropolitan Water Board or the Port of London Authority. But I cannot understand why a Socialist should object to a working man having the right to have gas as well as electricity in his house. I have both. I get one from the local authority which has control of the electricity supply and I get the other from the Gas Light and Coke Company. Am I a criminal on that account? [An HON. MEMBER: "Not on that account!"] I suppose some of my hon. Friends here might suggest that I am a criminal on another account. This is not a question of the Gas Light and Coke Company. It is not really a question of who is to supply the goods. It is a question of who wants the goods. I am a consumer and I am looking at this question from that point of view. In some cases the local authorities who provide the public with these services have, running across their areas, the system of a great company like the Gas Light and Coke Company. I am no friend of theirs but I am in favour of the Bill until I can get a better one.
As I say, I should like to see the whole supply of gas and electricity in the London area organised on lines similar to the water supply. I was a member of the Metropolitan Water Board for many years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, and I had the opportunity of enjoying something in the water. I have never objected to it and I have never said a word against the man who did not want it. I have a glass of beer when I like it and nobody will stop me from having it when I want it. As long as I am able to pay for it I am entitled to have it. But I wish to say this also, as a consumer of goods, that nobody has a right to say to me that I must have a certain supply, just because somebody controls it instead of somebody else. If I can get an equally good service from both I have the right of choice. As a Socialist I want to see the amalgamation of all these services because I believe in the common owner-
ship and control of the means of producing and distributing wealth. Electricity and gas represent wealth, though, as we all know, in this House gas is given away for nothing.
This Bill is a move in the right direction. No public authority and no private individual has a right to say that a tenant is not to have a choice in these matters. That is a principle on which we ought to vote—that no landlord has a right to say to a tenant "you shall not have this or that." If I pay my rent, no landlord should have the right to tell me that I am not to have gas in my house. There will be no trouble of this kind when the same authority provides both services. The problem will then be solved but naturally the question arises when one authority controls the supply of gas and another controls the supply of electricity. That, however, has nothing to do with us. On principle we in this House ought to say that the tenant has the right of choice as to the service which he uses.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. WISE: As a Member of the Committee which was presided over by my Noble Friend the Member for Western Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) I wish to enlarge a little on some of the facts which emerged in the course of the Committee's proceedings. I stress first the fact that the Committee, having heard the evidence carefully, was unanimous and that the evidence was sifted with great skill by many learned and no doubt expensive counsel for something like 40 hours in all. As a result of that sifting it was decided that this Bill had proved its Preamble and that with minor adjustments it was a fit and proper Bill to be reported to this honourable House. The principles which governed the Committee in its decision have been touched upon very ably by my Noble Friend and the particular principle of precedent was well expounded, by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) who gave the House instances of previous Bills of a nearly similar character which have been approved. The main principle which determined the decision of the Committee was that in our opinion this Bill secured liberty of choice for the subject and economy for a class who particularly needed it.
The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) failed to draw a distinction between privately-owned houses and municipally-owned houses, and although I, and I am sure all Members on this side, would stand up for the rights of a tenant of a privately-owned house, the two cases are not in fact the same. Local authorities are, first of all, not spending their own money. They are spending money provided for them by the ratepayers in their district and by the taxpayers of the country as a whole, and they are getting that money for specific public purposes, one of which is to provide houses for a certain class of tenant. Unfortunately, in some cases they have failed to do so, but the main principle of all the Housing Acts in this country is that houses should be provided for those who can afford to pay only the least possible rent. Therefore, if you subsidise houses in order to reduce the rent which people would otherwise have to pay, it is surely very illogical to debar them from the right of selecting a more economical form of light or heat in the same house. It would, in fact, only be giving away with one hand what you had given them with the other.
A large number of witnesses were called before the Committee to testify on this one question, and the overwhelming weight of evidence was definitely on the side that it was less expensive to do your cooking with gas than with electricity, and that it was less expensive to have your house lighted with gas than with electricity. My hon. Friend who spoke earlier explained how, on many occasions, the gas lighting acted as a form of subsidiary heating, and, therefore, saved money which was often expended on a second form of heating. I do not think there is any need to go further into that point. Nearly all the speakere who have supported the Bill have not only maintained but, I think, proved that it would be to the benefit of the tenants of these houses to have the right of choice as to which form of illuminant or heat they should use.
I think the hon. Member for West Walthamstow endeavoured to confuse the issue and to lead the House to believe that this was a question not of the right of choice at all, but of forcing unwilling tenants to take gas when they did not want it in the house. I do not know why
he took that line. The assumption is that he had not read the Bill, because if there is one thing clearer than another, it is that the Bill is not merely wholly permissive, but that it does not involve anybody except the gas company in any expense. If the gas company are prepared to undertake the very considerable expense of equipping these houses with gas, it s their own legitimate commercial risk, and I cannot see why they should be debarred from doing it by the arbitrary action of a local authority.
Another hon. Member, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams), in the course of his opposition to the Bill, said that these tenants had the right of protest at the local election, and that if they objected to any tyrannous action on the part of their council, they could unseat the council and replace it with one which was more addicted to respecting their liberties. I do not think the hon. Member really believes that that is feasible. Elections are mainly fought on party lines in these days, and it is not conceivable that you could fight an election on the issue as to whether Bill Smith was to have gas or electricity in his house. In London elections are annual, but in many districts surrounding London it would take these tenants, who have no money for propaganda, no organisation, and no means of instructing the electorate in what they want, three years to change the composition of the council. Are they to put up with an extremely expensive form of lighting which they do not want for three years while they go through the tedious process of fighting an election on the subject of gas versus electricity? I do not think that that is reasonable.
I would like to give some of the reasons why the Committee assumed that tyranny—I use that word advisedly—was being used by local authorities to make their own undertakings profitable. I will quote very briefly from some of the correspondence which took place between the Tilbury Council and some of the people who were unfortunate enough to be compelled to take houses on the Tilbury Council's estate. First of all, in the tenancy agreement, it was stated that the houses having been equipped for lighting, heating, and cooking with electricity, the tenant would be required to
accept such provision, and no alternative fittings would be permitted. It went on:
Acceptance by the tenant of this restriction is a condition precedent to the grant of tenancy, and any breach of it will lead to the immediate termination of the tenancy.
In other words, if you cook with some means much more suitable to you, you will be thrown Out of the house.
Further, to show that this tyranny was not without a financial object at the back of it, there was a second notice. Having compelled these tenants to take these fittings, which they did not want, they then proposed to charge them 1s. a week rent for having them. That was because some of the tenants on this estate, exercising their perfectly proper rights as citizens of a free country, refused to be browbeaten even by the threat of eviction, and in order to teach them not to have an alternative form of cooker, the council made them pay 1s. a week extra for having a cooker which they did not want to use. Even that form of financial blackmail was unsuccessful, and a letter was sent round by the council to its tenants saying:
Dear Sir and Madam.—The council are informed that although you have an electric cooker installed in your house, you still retain a gas cooker. I am to call your attention to the first clause of the tenancy agreement.…I am therefore to ask that you will take immediate steps to have the gas cooker removed, and to inform me for the information of the council when such removal has been made.
There you have local government at its very worst, and it is a great pity, when we know that local government need not be like that, and in most cases is not like that, that these cases are forced upon our notice. The case of Tilbury, which I have quoted, is not the only case of intimidation by a municipality. I have quoted it because I frankly admit it was far the worst case, but there are many others. The bulk of the opposition to this Bill came from councils which said* that it was all very well Tilbury doing this sort of thing, Willesden doing it, and Fulham doing it until they repented, but other councils were not likely to do it. That is no argument against this House imposing restrictions on the possibility of their doing it in future. Councils are subject to the vagaries of local elections; their constitution may change, and they may commit the very sins which they
proudly say that they will never commit to-day. The learned counsel who put this point for the opposition might just as well have said that as the bulk of citizens are not murderers we should refrain from treating homicide as a crime. There is no reason, just because most of these councils do not do it, why the House should not take steps to see that they never do it.
It has not been suggested yet by the supporters of the Bill that electricity can live with gas in free competition. I say advisedly that none of the supporters of the Bill either before the committee or here have suggested that. I do not use gas myself, except for cooking. Unlike the hon. Member for West Waltham-stow, who uses electricity all over his house, I have not yet progressed either to that height of wealth or passion for cleanliness. I suggest that freedom of competition is a valuable thing for this House to defend. Whether it be freedom of competition of one private company against another, or freedom of competition of a municipal undertaking against a private company. If the municipal undertaking is so incompetent that it cannot compete, it is as well that that fact should be shown so that the electors will have the opportunity of changing their municipal representatives for people who can run municipal undertakings. Private electricity companies are not as nervous of the competition of gas as the municipalities who oppose this Bill seem to be. The general manager of the Westminster Electricity Supply Company, in the course of his cross-examination, was asked by counsel: "Electricity can compete with gas, can it?" to which he replied: "If it cannot, we will give up business."
If this private company is prepared to take this risk, surely hon. Gentlemen opposite, who believe that municipally run undertakings are more efficient than privately run undertakings, will be prepared to have that same fair competition with this privately run undertaking, the Gas Light and Coke Company. If this competition is to be allowed, it must be allowed for the whole area in which the Gas Company operates. When municipal enterprise degenerates into municipal tyranny, it is time for this House to intervene and to protect the liberty of the subject against whatever form of administration is oppressive. This House
in the past was always the protector of the people's liberty. It has protected the people's liberty against the encroachment of the Crown, and against the encroachment of the Executive after we adopted the system of Cabinet Government. It is part of its duty to protect the citizen even against the encroachment of his own elected representatives on local authorities. I ask the House to give the Bill the Third Reading and to do it with no uncertain voice.

9 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: This Debate has been very consoling, particularly with regard to the speeches that have come from my hon. Friends of the official Opposition, because it has gone far to prove, what I have always felt would be the case, that if ever we got a real Socialist Government in this country determined to put through Socialist measures, no opposition that the wretched Tories might set up would compare with the torrents of abuse and opposition and defiance in defence of liberty and personal freedom that would come from the benches behind that Government. We should have the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) and the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) denouncing a real Socialist Government with decided emphasis—

Mr. THORNE: No, we should not.

Mr. J. JONES: That is only a joke from Aberdeen.

Mr. BOOTHBY: They would denounce the intolerable interference with their personal freedom and liberty and their right to live their own lives and to cook by electricity or gas or by anything else. It is very difficult to think of any argument that has been expressed against the Bill, and it is hard to think of any new one in favour of it. There are three principles of vital importance involved in the Measure which is before us. The first has been pointed out by almost every speaker. It is the principle of the freedom and liberty of the individual citizen. If I take a council house, it is not for the local authority to tell me whether I shall use gas or electricity. I have an absolute right to choose. I think that that principle has been vindicated. I have not heard a single word raised in opposition to it. There is another point in this connection. It is that whatever may be the case in future,
at the moment gas is on the whole the fuel of the poorest classes. It is much cheaper than electricity for cooking, and, I think, for lighting, and certainly for heating purposes at the moment.
I have long believed that one of the greatest curses of the country is the inability of nine-tenths of the English people to cook. The Scottish people are Very much better than the English. I Understand that it is one of the tactics of the gas companies to give lessons in cookery to those people who instal gas for cooking purposes. Ever Since the War, I believe that this country has consumed a higher proportion of tinned food per head of population than any other country in the world. I am certain that it would be not only cheaper for our people but better for their health, and very much better for our own farmers and fishermen, if they were to eat fresh food cooked by themselves instead of the tinned food from abroad of which they consume such vast quantities at the present time. I believe that is a factor to be taken into serious consideration.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Do not forget the canning industry.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The fishing industry is of greater importance than the canning industry, and so are farming and fruit growing. I would rather have fresh fish than canned fish any day of the week. If the hon. Member would just try a split herring fried on a gas stove in contrast with tinned fish—for which he would have to pay a considerably higher price at the shops—he would find that his digestion would congratulate him and that his outlook on life would improve.
A second point which has not been stressed to-night, but which is very important, is that if this House, casually and on an after-dinner Debate, is to upset the decisions of a committee appointed by it which has sat for weeks on end examining innumerable witnesses at immense cost, and has come to a unanimous conclusion, it would be better to stop setting up these committees. A vital question of principle is involved, and I think that point of view ought to be expressed. We ought not, and cannot, challenge the unanimous decisions of committees which have
taken evidence for weeks; we cannot come to right conclusions in the haphazard and lighthearted manner suggested this evening. The last question of principle I wish to raise is this. The very people who are anxious to saddle with the heaviest burdens the concessions made by public authorities, whether Parliament or local authorities, to private individuals are those who oppose all other forms of taxation upon consumption. Public authorities, in. supplying things like gas or electricity, are apt to use their undertakings as a fiscal system for purposes other than the actual supply of the gas or electricity. I do not believe that municipal authorities are by any means the best or most efficient servers of the public with gas and electricity.

Mr. J. JONES: They make bigger profits than the gas companies, and provide cheaper service.

Mr. BOOTHBY: There is a great argument against public utility undertakings as operated by municipalities and in favour of purely private companies— working, of course, under supervision and regulation, as all monopolies of that kind must do. As this point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) is a point of substance, I would like to read one paragraph from the extremely interesting report of one of the largest public utility undertakings in the world, Sofina. It says:
The inferiority of public management"—
as against private management of public utilities,
can be attributed to three causes. Public bodies are bound by regulations which often debar them from entrusting command to those who would be best qualified to exercise authority; moreover, they are seldom free to place orders in the most favourable conditions. Their staff's responsibility, which is collective rather than individual, is vaguely defined, and consequently personal initiative finds little encouragement; the master of the undertaking, namely, the body of electors, is even more inconsistent than a shareholders' meeting. Further, considerations that have nothing to do with the financial success of the undertaking affect the decisions of those in charge of the service.
I think there is something to be said in favour of those who believe that the best of all systems is private enterprise working under concession and under the general supervision and authority and, if
you like, regulation of the State. I do not believe that, in the very nature of things, municipal authorities give the best services to the community in the matter of gas and electricity, and some of the speeches to-night, telling of the real tyranny which is exercised in many places by municipal undertakers, go far to bear out the argument I have been putting to the House.
I would only say in conclusion that I believe that in this country public utilities are under developed at the present time, and that the Government ought to direct their attention very seriously, in the course of the next few years, to the development of public utilities. Both in the case of gas and of electricity I do not believe we are as efficient or as developed as far as many other countries in Europe. Statistics which I could quote, but will not, bear out that point of view. I believe that one of the reasons why we are so under developed in comparison with other countries, especially so far as gas and electricity are concerned, is to be found in the host of petty restrictions of all sorts and kinds imposed upon private enterprise. I want to see the maximum freedom allowed to private enterprise provided a certain standard of efficiency is insisted on by the State.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): We are now debating the consideration of a Bill, the discussion on which is strictly limited to the provisions in the Bill, and we cannot go into general questions.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I can only say, before I sit down, that I am slightly astonished that you did not check me before. I was not absolutely certain how far I was transgressing authority, but I thought I would go as far as I could, and I hastily apologise. I will conclude my observations by expressing the earnest hope that the House will give this Measure a Third Reading.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. SELLEY: I rise with great confidence to express to the House the reasons why I, as Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, opposed this Bill in Committee upstairs. I do not think the point about which we were rather anxious has been brought out in the Debate this evening. The London County Council
are undertakers neither of gas nor of electricity, but we are the greatest housing corporation in the world. We have estates both outside and inside the Metropolitan area; we have estates where we have been compelled to use gas because the other service was not available; and we have estates where we have had the choice of either or could use both. Although I am not going to vote for the rejection of this Bill I want to point out that we were a little anxious about this point. We have been told of installations offered free by the gas companies, but I can assure the House that no such installation could be offered free by the electricity undertakings, and for this reason. A gas point can be put into a house for something like 3s. 6d., whereas it would probably cost 15s. to put in an electricity point. The London County Council, by its vast experience in having something like 50,000 tenants, has definitely come to the conclusion that the great Majority of those people enjoy electricity as an illuminant and prefer gas for cooking and heating. I can definitely state that the council, in the estates which they control, have endeavoured to give those services.
We see a little difficulty in this Bill. I know that the noble Lord has tried upstairs to meet the council's case, but our anxiety is not as to whether we should pipe the houses for gas, but that we should feel compelled to wire them for electricity. We believe that 90 per cent., or probably 99 per cent., of the people require electricity for lighting, and we are rather against putting in a dual system for lighting purposes.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not a fact that the gas companies will pipe these houses themselves, and that there is no further expense to the localities?

Mr. SELLEY: That is quite true. That brings us up against another point, which is the management side of the estates. Our real anxiety is that we get people in for whom we have to put back the electric light, and then, when we have a change of tenancy a few months afterwards, the electric fittings have to go, and we have to reinstate the gas fittings. That is a real management problem about which we have been concerned. There is another side, which I do not wish to stress, and which arises in connection with decorating the houses. Speaking as
a property manager, I would much rather have the interior of any houses lighted by electricity than by gas, because of the dirty ceilings caused by gas and because of upkeep, particularly in those cottages, where, as most hon. Members know, the ceilings are not more than 8 ft. in height. It was on those grounds that my council offered opposition to this Bill.
I was very much relieved to hear the Noble Lord say that we need have no fear that we should not he able to go on and do just as we have done in the past. I can assure the House that although I shall not go into the Lobby against the Bill, I was very anxious, and, I assure hon. Members, my council was very anxious, to see that our rights should be protected. Although we are desirous of giving a choice, we should not be put to the expense of a dual system of installation in every house, and although the gas people put in gas pipes free, we should still feel that we had to instal electricity for illuminating the council houses, and that would be an added charge to the municipality.

9.18 p.m.

Captain ARTHUR HOPE: As the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said, there are not many arguments which have not already been used. I should like, however, to echo what has been said by my hon. Friend as to the necessity of passing this Bill this evening. It has been considered for a very long time in Committee. The whole of the case has been put very ably for and against, and it was the unanimous wish of the Committee that this Bill should be passed. I know that the House has the right to reject a Bill at any stage, but I do not think, after the unanimous decision in Committee and the practical withdrawal of the opposition of the London County Council, that the objections should be proceeded with.
I want to emphasise once again the right of an individual to have what installation he likes in his own house, whether he rents that house from a private owner or from a municipality. I entirely agree that the great bulk of the people in this country would prefer to have two installations in their houses. For lighting, electricity is undoubtedly better, and, I think, cheaper, but for cooking and heating gas is undoubtedly
better. I think that this is not in the least a question of the rival merits of gas light or of electric light, nor is it a question of the rival merits of public or private ownership. It is a question of the right of the ordinary individual to say what he would prefer to have in his own house. The Labour party, although they are committed to the municipalisation and the nationalisation of things generally, are, in this case, pressing the matter rather too hard. I do not think on this question that one need get very heated. Any fair-minded person who believes in the liberty of the subject should allow this Bill to go through in order that an individual should have the right, whether he is the tenant of a private or a public enterprise, to have what heating or illumination he wants.
The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Brian*), with whose philosophy I entirely agree, said that every individual should have the right to lead his own life in his own way, and to buy those things which he could afford and wishes to buy, provided that he does not cause any trouble to his neighbour and to the community at large. That is a perfectly right philosophy, which I think goes outside the bounds of party politics. In this case it cannot possibly be to the detriment of his neighbours whether a man has a gas fire or an electric fire in his own house. The question of costs does not seem to have arisen very much this evening. To the ordinary tenant who has to take a house and to pay his rent over to the municipality or to the owner, costs enter very greatly into consideration. It seems almost iniquitous that a local council should tell him to spend, say, 5s., upon lighting, when he might get it a good deal cheaper from the Gas Light and Coke Company.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciates that, in the production of electric light, price depends very largely upon the quantity consumed, and that a council would be justified in installing the greatest amount of wiring in houses in order to consume the greatest quantity, and consequently to offer the lowest price to the consumer.

Captain HOPE: That is true, but it would not appeal to the individual who had to pay more for it when it went into his house. Another thing which the hon.
Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) put very forcibly was, that ratepayers who are occupying council houses have the right every year, if they do not like their council, to put in men whom they do like. I do not think that the average individual in this country takes a vital interest in local politics, and that he is going to fight for his gas mantle or electric light bulb every 1st November by having a harum-scarum campaign through the constituency. Local elections are fought very largely on party politics, and I should deprecate every little question of amenities in one's own home being fought out in local elections. This is a perfectly correct Bill, and I hope that it will be copied by public utility undertakings throughout the country. It gives what everybody should have, the right not to be dictated to by every owner or by every public authority, in regard to what lighting and what fuel one wishes in one's own house.

9.24 p.m.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: My name is on the back of one of these Bills, promoted by one of the good employers in my constituency. I have listened to this Debate with extreme interest. It is evidence of the truth of the remark that there is only one contention, although there are hundreds of ways of making it. We have been discussing nomiNaily the Commercial Gas Bill and the Gas Light and Coke Company Bill, and yet the Debate has been the old traditional Debate, never ended, on the difference between liberty and authority, and the line of demarcation between the two. I am astounded that the opposition to this Bill is so deep, and so heavy, that the two hon. Members, who represent West Ham so faithfully, are unable, as free men, to exercise their right to vote on this Amendment. It seems to me a matter of extraordinary interest that we should see to-night two private Bills, dealing with a small part of the country, call for the heaviest exercise of party discipline. If it is necessary, by party discipline, to insist that people living in my constituency should be allowed to cook in only one official way, then the aims and ideals of their party can best be found in Dart-moor where lighting, heating and cooking are under the rigid discipline of His Majesty's Government, and where any-
one who, prompted by the terrible imp of freedom, lights his cell, cooks his food, or heats himself in a manner not provided by regulation, is subject to penalties.
We are told that these Bills must be objected to because these companies exploit every opportunity to make profit. We are told that they must be obstructed in this House. If that is so, then the workers of this country must be conscious, or will be conscious to-morrow, that the pursuit of the ideal of Socialism, which may come when we are dead, means that present employment is bound, on principle, to be obstructed, that it is better to be out of work to-day and heat ourselves by compulsory electricity in order that our great-grandchildren, whom we shall not see, may be compulsory Socialists. I represent to the Opposition that these private companies are producing profits which are taxed. To destroy a company, which gives employment and produces taxes, is of no service to the country at the present time.
We have been told that the tenants of these houses are inhabiting publicly-owned property. I do believe they pay their rates with privately-owned money, and we are told that privately-earned money should not be disbursed in a private and peculiar way which these tenants in their iniquity choose for themselves. I am hand-in-hand and heart-in-heart with the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) who said he would purchase for himself what he chose. We are told that the tenants are free to organise at election times. It may be so in the happy places from which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) comes, but let us bring our minds to London areas. A leader of a party, in order to be among his people, is frequently the leading tenant of council houses. Agents also live in council houses. These tenants cannot cook their chicken in an improper way without being informed upon. There is not in council houses that absolute freedom we would desire. If any hon. Members have ever attempted to canvass at election time in council houses they have found that there is a kind of frozen, chilly reception for anyone who has a spirit a little different from that of the dominating political party.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is not the Second Beading of the Bill. The
Debate must be strictly limited to what is in the Bill.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: I would point out that in this matter Parliament has given an over-riding decision on principle in its acceptance of the Kettering Gas Bill. We remember that an authority so great as the London County Council has passed a resolution that, so far as practicable, it is desirable, if no charge on the rates is involved, that equal opportunity should be given to the gas companies. To go a little lower, the Stepney Borough Council have inserted in their agreements with the tenants that they should at all times use the electricity installation and accessories supplied by the council. The lower we go in the hierarchy the heavier becomes this oppression. I am pleased that the Stepney Borough Council recently, in its greater wisdom, agreed to the insertion of certain provisions in Clause 3 of the Bill. One cannot be deaf to the important point of management which has been made by the hon. Member who spoke for the London County Council. But we must always remember that human beings are more important than the management of human beings. This Clause does not exist to make the problem of administration easier. The administration should not ask for sheep-like tenants who can be ordered to use this or that, so that the official position of the administrator may be a little easier. I should not be considered as a serious suggestion that changing tenants may need frequent replacement of their lighting and heating apparatus. That may come about when the slums are cleared and the country covered with many houses, easily accessible. This House has always been the defence of the principle of freedom—freedom to the poorest, and freedom to the consumers. Once in English history there was compulsion to bury our dead in woollen shrouds for the benefit of the woollen trade. We hope we shall never return to such a state of things.

9.34 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The Government would desire that the House should give a Third Reading to both the Bills now under discussion.
The Debate has roamed over a very wide field, and a great many arguments have been adduced in favour of these Bills. There is very little that remains to be said by any Government spokesman on their behalf. I should like to say just two things with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) who moved the rejection. When he reads the Debate he will find that he really misunderstood the purposes of the Bill. Whereas he thought that the Bill imposed restrictions, he will find, when he looks at it calmly, that the Bill seeks to make it impossible for local authorities to impose restrictions. The hon. Member raised, however, one point to which, so far, no answer has been given. It was as to whether the Bills would permit local authorities to deal with questions of structural alterations and with reasonable conditions as to gas fittings and electric light fittings. I think the attention of the House ought to be called to a provision, which is in like form in both Bills, that nothing is to prevent a reasonable term or condition being imposed as to the part of the room or building in which fittings for any form of heat, light, power or energy are to be installed. To put it shortly, there is nothing whatever in the point that the hon. Member sought to introduce, that there was any difficulty about attaching reasonable conditions in these matters.
The other speech to which I would call attention was that of the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley), with regard to the management point. There is a great difference between a point of management such as he raised and giving power to a local authority of a backward character to do some of the things which were referred to in the evidence before the Select Committee. There is a wide difference, and it has been found, regrettably, to be necessary to prevent local authorities of backward complexion from doing some of the things to which evidence was directed before the Select Committee. The House is under a debt of gratitude to the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) for presiding over the Select Committee, which sat for nine days, which was addressed by 13 counsel, including seven King's Counsel, and some of the evidence before which was really of a shocking character. I do not propose to put any local authority in the
pillory or refer to them by name, but I hope that any hon. Member who has the slightest misgiving about the granting of the Third Reading of these Bills will take the trouble to read some of the printed evidence given before the Select Committee. When you find local authorities deliberately pouring liquid cement into the gas pipes to prevent their tenants from having the alternative of the use of gas, it is time to protest, and also when you find a gas supply ruthlessly cut off by the somewhat crude method of a hacksaw cut through a pipe

while the automatic meter is still on, so that, if a shilling were inserted, there might be very serious consequences to life and property. When things of that kind are possible, it is time that this House should say, and say quite clearly, that local authorities are not to be allowed powers of that kind. I ask the House to give a Third Reading to the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 21.

Division No. 179.]
AYES.
[9.38 p.m.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Potter, John


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hanbury, Cecil
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hanley, Dennis A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hartington, Marquess of
Rankin, Robert


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Hartland, George A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Robinson, John Roland


Boulton, W. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hepworth, Joseph
Runge, Norah Cecil


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Briant, Frank
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Horobin, Ian M.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Burghley, Lord
Iveagh, Countess of
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Burnett, John George
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Slater, John


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Law, Sir Alfred
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Leckie, J. A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Lees-Jones, John
Super, Richard


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Conant, R. J. E.
Liddall, Walter S.
Southby. Commander Archibald E. J.


Cook, Thomas A.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Spens, William Patrick


Copeland, Ida
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Strauss, Edward A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Crooke, J. Smedley
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Crossley, A. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Summersby, Charles H.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Tate, Mavis Constance


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Magnay, Thomas
Templeton, William P.


Dickie, John p.
Maitland, Adam
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thompson, Luke


Dunglass, Lord
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Todd. Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Elmley, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mitcheson, G, G.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Wills, Wilfrid D.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Muirhead, Major A. J
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Gledhill, Gilbert
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Goff, Sir Park
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Goldie, Noel B.
Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wise, Alfred R.


Gower, Sir Robert
Nunn, William
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Womersley, Walter James


Greene, William P. C.
Pearson, William G.
Wood. Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Petherick, M.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)



Hales, Harold K.
Pickering, Ernest H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—




Mr. Clarry and Dr. O'Donovan.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)


Batey, Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Cape, Thomas
Daggar, George
Edwards, Charles


Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jenkins, Sir William
McEntee, Valentine L.



Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Price, Gabriel
Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Motion made, and Question put:

"That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read

King's Consent, signified.

the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 21.

Division No. 180.]
AYES.
[9.48 p.m.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Potter, John


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hanbury, Cecil
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hanley, Dennis A.
Rankin, Robert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harbord, Arthur
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Barrio, Sir Charles Coupar
Hartington, Marquess of
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Hartland, George A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Robinson, John Roland


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Boulton, W. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hepworth, Joseph
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Briant, Frank
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Iveagh, Countess of
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burghley, Lord
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Law, Sir Alfred
Slater, John


Burnett, John George
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lees-Jones, John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Liddall, Walter S.
Soper, Richard


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Conant, R. J. E.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Spens, William Patrick


Cook, Thomas A.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stevenson, James


Copeland, Ida
McKie, John Hamilton
Strauss, Edward A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Crossley, A. C.
Magnay, Thomas
Sutcliffe, Harold


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Maitland, Adam
Tate, Mavis Constance


Davies, Maj, Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Templeton, William P.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Dickie, John P.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thompson, Luke


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Margeason, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Dunglast, Lord
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Elmley, Viscount
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Milne, Charles
Wells, Sydney Richard


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
White, Henry Graham


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mitcheson, G. G.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morrison, William Shepherd
Wills, Wilfrid D.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gledhill, Gilbert
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wise, Alfred R.


Goldic, Noel B.
Nunn, William
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Gower, Sir Robert
Palmer, Francis Noel
Womersley, Walter James


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Pearson, William G.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Greene, William P. C.
Petherick, M.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)



Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pickering, Ernest H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hales, Harold K.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Mr. Clarry and Dr. O'Donovan.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Mr. John and Mr. CI. Macdonald.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

COMMERCIAL GAS BILL. (By Order.)

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,593,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Removal of Workers and their Dependants; Grants for assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,592,900, be granted for the said Service."

9.58 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: When the interruption came at half-past Seven o'Clock I was dealing with the item of £25,000 for charity organisations and asking why the item had been increased from £10,000 to £25,000. We object to any money going to any charity organisations. Money which is raised and comes within the domain of the Unemployment Insurance Fund ought to go to the unemployed and not to any charity organisations. When the House voted £10,000 last year, we understood that it was to be given to the National Council of Social Service. The money was given principally for the purpose of helping social services, and the chief reason given by the Minister was that the money was for the purpose of encouraging physical training. I notice in the Estimate this year that the
Minister has dropped the words "National Council of Social Service," and in page 25 of the Estimates says:
Grants in respect of arrangements for assisting and stimulating voluntary efforts to provide occupation for unemployed persons.
It is clear that what the Minister has in mind is that the money shall be given to voluntary organisations for the purpose of finding employment. As this is public money voted by the House of Commons, we are entitled to ask what voluntary organisations have already received money or are to receive it? If an organisation claims to be a charitable organisation and to help the unemployed, we should be extremely careful in voting it public money. The money should only be granted to such a voluntary organisation provided we are able to keep a thorough grip upon the organisation not merely in regard to providing work but in keeping in touch with young men and women so assisted. The Minister should give us the names of the voluntary organisations, because there are so many of them in the country.
I understood, when we voted the £10,000, that the money was largely for social centres. Is the Ministry of Labour keeping in touch with those social centres, because they are springing up all over. Some of the social centres are making articles which are being sold in shops and are really blacklegging employers who are producing similar articles under trade union conditions. Articles are made in the social centres without any payment of wages and at a very cheap rate, and they can be sold cheaply to the shops. Therefore, they are really injuring the employers and trades which are paying trade union rates of wages. I should like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that these social centres are not doing more harm than good.
I would draw the attention of the Minister to the huge sum of money required for the cost of administration, which amounts this year to no less than £7,100,000. When the public see that £83,000,000 is to be provided for the Unemployment Insurance Fund, they get the impression that all the money is to go to the unemployed, but here we are with an item of no less than £7,100,000 which is being paid in respect of the cost of administration. I urge the Minister of Labour, as I have done in former years,
to give his attention to the huge cost of administration when so many of the unemployed are suffering so acutely. The Minister should, if he can, reduce this huge cost. We also have to complain that £2,000,000 of the £7,100,000 I have mentioned is to be used for the administration of transitional payments. The Minister should not go to this additional cost, under the means test, in regard to what is really duplicate machinery. The Employment Exchanges established throughout the country should deal with all the unemployed instead of having the additional machinery of the public assistance committees and the commissioners. There is no reason whatever for the duplication of machinery. The Ministry ought to aim at the simplification of the machinery.
There is another item about which I was not clear when my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was speaking. He referred to the saving on the Estimates. If I understood the Minister aright he said that under the means test the Ministry saved last year, in round figures, £30,000,000. What we want to know is how much does the Minister anticipate will be saved under the means test this year? I cannot believe that the Ministry has not formed some estimate as to the amount of money that will have to be paid for transitional benefit this year. As £30,000,000 was saved last year, are we to understand that the Minister expects to save an additional £30,000,000 this year? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had provided for the payment of only £22,000,000 for transitional benefit. But the cost is about £54,000,000. So it rather seems that the Ministry expects to save this year an additional £30,000,000 under the means test. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make the figures clear to us.
I drew attention earlier to-night to what had been said about the means test not merely from these benches but by supporters of the Government. Let me put a question to the Minister. Does he intend to go on with the means test, seeing that it is condemned from these benches and by Conservatives and by the country generally? The Minister ought to tell us what the position is. The test is one of the most obnoxious things that
any Government could devise. I heard the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) say yesterday, in reference to another country, that its conduct was unchristian, and ungenerous, and so forth. Of the means test we could use all those words and many more. In my opinion it is one of the meanest things of which anyone could be guilty, and it is one of the most unchristian things.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can discuss the administration of the means test, but he cannot discuss a proposed abolition of it.

Mr. BATEY: I was not advocating abolition. I simply want to know what the Minister is going to do with it, whether he proposes to continue it or to reduce benefit or what? I want to know the mind of the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can ask questions about the mind of the Minister, as to how the Minister is going to carry out his duty in regard to the means test, but he cannot ask whether the Minister is going to abolish the means test, because that would involve legislation.

Mr. BATEY: I do not think I used the word "abolish." I want to know whether the Minister is satisfied with the means test. But I leave the matter there, because I want to refer to the question of administration. In my opinion the administration of the means test is bad, but let me pass to the administration by commissioners of supplementary benefit, which is far worse. We come from an area where we still object not only to the means test but to the administration of supplementary benefit by the commissioners. I want the Minister clearly to understand that, although we may not be putting as many questions to him now as we were putting some weeks ago, we are still strongly embittered by the administration of supplementary benefit by the commissioners. All that I have said about the meanness and the unchristian character of the means test can be applied doublefold to the administration of supplementary benefit by the commissioners.
Let me give the details of a case of which I heard last Saturday. A man in my constituency said to me: "I am over
60 years of age. I am still working in the pit for a low wage. I have a married daughter. My wife said to me, 'As our daughter's husband has been out of work for some time we will bring her and her husband and their two children here to live with us.'" The daughter and her husband and the two children went to live with the father and mother, whereupon the commissioners reduced the benefit by 2s. 6d. a week. How the Minister can justify an action like that or continue this system is beyond me. We cannot speak too strongly of the administration of supplementary benefit by the commissioners. Does the Minister propose to continue administering supplementary benefit through the commissioners, or has he seen the wisdom of doing away with commissioners and dealing with the matter in an altogether different way?
The Minister told us to-day that the figures for unemployment during the first three months of this year showed a fall of 200,000, and he added that the figures gave cause for encouragement. I was reminded that the Minister really is an optimist. But sometimes he is not justified in his optimism. May I remind him of a speech that he delivered in March last year, when he said that he believed we were justified in entertaining feelings of restrained optimism as to the future, and that the facts justified some hope that the corner had been turned? We have not got round the corner yet, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in his optimism to-day on the figures that he presented to the House. I do not believe that they give cause for encouragement. He confessed that in two important trades, cotton and coal, there was a very large decrease in employment. I want the Minister and the Government to turn their attention to those trades. Until they can put the cotton trade and the coal trade on their feet they will not be justified in being optimistic and in believing that we are likely to get round the corner. Therefore, I would like the Minister to impress upon the Cabinet that something should be done in order to help those trades.
The Minister, to justify his position to-day in regard to the coal trade, quoted the recent trade agreements with Denmark, Germany, Argentina, Norway and
Sweden. Those agreements will do very little for the coal industry. Last year we sold 16,000,000 tons of coal less than we did in 1930. In 1930, with all the faults of the Labour Government—

Mr. SLATER: What about 1926?

Mr. BATEY: The hon. Member must recollect in regard to 1926 that the trouble was due to the fact that we wanted to maintain a decent standard of life for our people. Does he say that we were not justified in that?

Mr. SLATER: It was the wrong way to go about it.

Mr. BATEY: Does the hon. Member say that we were not justified in trying to maintain a decent standard of life for our people? When hon. Members quote 1926 to us we feel that they do not want the people to have a decent standard of life.

Mr. SLATER: That is not so.

Mr. BATEY: That is the interpretation we put upon it. In 1930, when the Labour Government were in office, we exported 54,000,000 tons of coal. Last year we only exported 38,000,000 tons. The trade agreements, at the best, will only increase our coal export by a little over 3,000,000 tons a year, so that there is a long leeway to make up. We are still a long way short. I would like the Minister to give far more attention than he has yet given to the question of doing something to help the coal industry. He said that the Government cannot find employment. I believe the Government could find employment and that it is their duty to do so, or to maintain the men at a decent standard of life. The Government could find employment for the people if they had the will to do it. The Minister says that we must leave the finding of employment to private enterprise. That is what we have done, and private enterprise has been an absolute failure.
The Government might take a lesson from the President of the United States. He wants to raise £660,000,000 in order to find employment for the people of America. There is friendship between this country and America, therefore let us see if we cannot get a new idea from the President of America. He realises that he can help America by raising a fund for the purpose of finding work for
the people, and I want our Government to copy that example and see if they cannot do something more than they are doing in order to find work for men who have been out of employment for so many years. The Minister mentioned the fact that there are 50,000 fewer miners employed to-day than at the beginning of the year. The mere recital of those figures does not give a correct idea of the condition of things in the North of England. In the North of England we have whole districts derelict, and there is no hope of employment. These districts simply make one feel that something out of the ordinary must be done, and that the Minister ought not to be satisfied with merely coming down to the House, submitting the Estimates, having an academic Debate and then going away and thinking that everything is right. We have had so many of these Debates that we are apt to get a little tired of them. I put it to the Minister, and to the Government, that there is an absolute need for something to be done, far more than is being done now. The Government must wake up and stimulate employment, if necessary find employment so that these men may find work.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: I had not intended to address the Committee this evening but I cannot help commenting upon one or two remarks of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). When he went back to the record of the Labour Government I was hoping that he was going to refer to the remarkable growth of unemployment under that administration of 150 per cent. and to the fall of 1½ per cent. under the present Government. Unlike him I am not going to attribute everything that has gone wrong to the fault of any particular Government, that is highly unreasonable. I want to refer to the work of the National Council of Social Service. The hon. Member for Spennymoor rather attacked social service centres and implied that the Government were not justified in granting sums of money to them. From my personal experience of these social service centres I should like to pay my tribute to the work of the National Council of Social Service and my criticism of the Minister is not that he spends too much in grants to the
council, and to kindred associations, but that he has spent far too little. From my experience in my own constituency, which I am certain can be paralled in other constituencies, it is my firm conviction that the vast Majority of unemployed men approach these centres most willingly and are most anxious that they should flourish.
In one town in my constituency during the last two or three months, the unemployed men themselves, out of their pennies every week, have amassed a reserve fund, over and above working expenses, of £16. That is a contribution from men who are receiving unemployment insurance and transitional benefit, which is truly remarkable. The point which I do not think the hon. Member has realised is that the money from the Government grant is not going to recreational centres, it is being given only in order to form occupational centres, where the men can learn a trade. I am certain he is wrong when he says that to a large extent the products of the occupational centres are being sold in ordinary shops to the detriment of ordinary tradesmen. I hope the Minister in framing his Estimates for another year will pay far more attention to the vast amount of salvage work among the unemployed which can be done by these centres. They do not tend to make the men contented with their lot, they do not undermine their independence of attitude and independence of spirit, but they do enable them to feel that they are doing something for themselves and something for the community. I believe that every penny spent in this work produces far more result than many shillings spent in transitional benefit or unemployment insurance.
The hon. Member for Spennymoor, as, indeed, most Members who have spoken in the Debate, has referred to the means test. In common with all supporters of the National Government I am convInced that a means test is absolutely essential—I say that quite definitely—but I should not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not say that there is profound misgiving amongst Members of all parties who represent industrial constituencies as to certain types of administration, certain methods of administration, of the means test. I only heard to-day of a town where the
public assistance committee had a certain amount of discretion up to a few weeks ago. That discretion has now been taken away, and a Revisory County Committee, as it is called, has been appointed with the result that 200 or 300 cases, particularly hard cases, which had been sent up to the revisory committee were dealt with in an hour or an hour and a half. I can imagine it being done by the office boy. Every grant of money from public funds over and above a certain statutory limit has been cut down ruthlessly. If industrial districts are not to have a sense of profound grievance, a wide range of discretion must be left to the local public assistance committees.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) the other day jibed at the Government for being what he called a South country government. I do not think it was a just jibe. I think this Government have paid far more attention to the mining industry than any preceding Government. But there is a danger that hon. Members living in the South of England, and the Government, may forget that there is all the difference in the world between a district in the South where unemployment is sporadic, geographically speaking, and a district in the North or in Wales where it is constant and where it affects the whole district. If one family out of 10 is dependent on transitional payment, they get an enormous amount of help from their neighbours. But when it is a case of five or six families out of 10, neighbourly feeling cannot provide the requisite help. I am not attacking the Minister or the Government because I have the utmost faith in them. But I should not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not point out the profound misgivings and uneasiness which exists among people of all varieties of political opinion at the extraordinary anomalies in the administration of these means test provisions.
One finds cases such as that of a father who is at work with two sons who are out of work. The sons live in outhouses or in huts on allotments, in order to be able to draw their transitional payments. There is another hardship involved which is not reflected in the ordinary unemployment figures. When a pit is shut down for eight days in a fortnight, it may be that the whole income of a town, in-
stead of being the wages of 12 working days in the fortnight, is restricted to the proceeds of four days' work in the fortnight. Turning to a different subject, my own experience has been that no praise can be too high for the managers of the Employment Exchanges and the Ministry certainly deserve a tribute on that score. FiNaily I beg of the Minister to remember that while, in the attacks of the Labour party upon the Government, in connection with the means test, 80 per cent. of their criticism merely arises from the fact that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, yet there is 20 per cent. which is common to all parties—and that many of us are very uneasy about it although our faith and trust in the National Government are not diminished.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: To-night's discussion has been a little different from most of those which have preceded it on the Ministry of Labour Vote. We have had several speeches like that of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson), more or less advocating the view that we ought to consider this question in a nonpartisan spirit. The hon. Member said that it was the duty of the Opposition to oppose. I assure him that in any good which the Government seeks to do we shall be glad to support them. We do not take the attitude that our business is merely to sling stones at the Government or at anybody else. It is our business to put a point of view, and, if we cannot get the whole of our views accepted, to get as much of it accepted as we can. What amuses me is that hon. Members who appeal for a non-party view of this question, generally start by attacking the late Labour Government. Whenever any hon. Member is hard put to it to find an argument, he turns round and says: "This is what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said"—somewhere, some time, years ago. I am beginning to feel quite swollen-headed about it, because apparently what George Lansbury said a century ago, the Tory party thinks to-day. I cannot help feeling that, because hon. Member after hon. Member, when they want to defend some rascality, call me in aid. I feel very proud, because it shows how hard-up they are for arguments themselves, that they have to fall
back on what I said in my prehistoric days.
There is one point about which I would like the Minister of Labour to give us a little more enlightenment. It was raised by one of my hon. Friends. It is on page 4, and it has to do with the figures of savings on transitional payments. This will have some bEarlng on what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) spoke about earlier in the evening, as to the deterioration in the health of the people and the fact that in all kinds of districts there is dissatisfaction with the administration of the means test. If these figures are right, I think we have enough reason for the dissatisfaction. The Minister budgets this year for £31,400,000, and last year he spent, apparently, £54,350,000. I would like to know whether he did spend that, or-whether it is an estimate, because it says in the last column that that is a decrease of £22,950,000 for this year. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me whether the £54,350,000 was spent last year. When it came forward we understood that it was a saving of £10,000,000 on the previous year. The only point that we want cleared up is whether you are going to save this year nearly £23,000,000, because if you saved £10,000,000 last year, it means that you are really going to take £40,000,000, as compared with the expenditure of the Labour Government. We would very much like to have those figures cleared up, because if you save the money, it is certain that the unemployed cannot have it.
I want to raise the question of training. I am of opinion that no young man or young woman ought to be kept in idleness. I have always maintained that, and I have always maintained also that no able-bodied man with a wife and family, able and willing to work, should be refused absolutely full maintenance for his wife, his children, and himself, if the State and no one else can find him the means of earning his living. With regard to young men, when I spoke in the House some months ago, on the day when we had a free discussion without any vote, I dealt with this question, as I thought, on the common-sense lines. There is here a figure of £448,000 for the training of young unemployed men. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)
and those who have asked: "When you have trained them what are you going to do with them?" Where are they to go?" This is not a new problem. It is a problem which all of us who have dealt with unemployment have been up against all our lives. It is futile to train men without having any occupation for them when they have been trained. The hon. Member for Wallsend said that they were to go back home reconditioned—a foul word to apply to human beings. We have no business to let them get into that condition. It is like talking about old junk.
The hon. Member for Wallsend went on to say that they should have their unemployment insurance paid while they were being trained so that when they finished training they would be eligible for unemployment pay. There is a fine sort of prospect to put before a young man! You are to train and refit him—or recondition him, as you say—and at the end he is to walk about doing nothing. He will have 15s. a week and when he gets out of condition he will be again reconditioned. All that is nonsense. Anyone who has ever heard me speak in the House knows that I have taken up that line in regard to ordinary training. I was a minority on this subject in the Government of which I was a Member, and they stuck to transference until they could stick to it no longer. I spoke against transference when the Treasury Committee first brought it up some years ago, when there was an investigation in South Wales. Everybody said then, as a great expert said when Employment Exchanges were instituted, that we wanted to secure mobility of labour and that would settle unemployment. The assumption underlying transference and training is that there is a job waiting at the end. Everybody knows, however, that there is no work waiting to be done to-day, and all that happens is that if you train a man he gets a job if there is one, and the man who is not trained does not get it. The business of the Employment Exchanges is to give the first opportunity of work to people who have been trained.
What could we do with this £400,000 and a great deal more that is in these Estimates for unemployment and training? If the Government are unwilling to undertake the drainage and reclamation of land and the bringing of derelict land into cultivation, they could do all the
drainage and the prevention of flooding that needs to be done by getting contractors under ordinary conditions. The only thing that I would stipulate is that they should take the young men and employ them ordinarily as they would if they had a contract to build a railway. I cannot understand why the Government should continue to spend money in this way and refuse to do such useful work as the prevention of the flooding which takes place every year. I have seen miners doing this kind of work, and there are no men who can do it better, and none better than young miners. Instead of putting these young men into occupational centres or into training centres and giving them a fairly easy and good time for a few weeks, I say that the Minister of Agriculture and all concerned with the land should supply the right hon. Gentleman with the schemes and that the money which is in this Vote, and other money which we ought to insist upon the Treasury providing, should be used to carry out this useful work.
The next thing I would do with these young men would be to allow them to undertake the work of turning the land they had reclaimed into farms, either smallholdings or big farms, just as the experts said was best, and I am certain that 90 per cent. of them could, if properly dealt with, ultimately get their living on the land. About that, also, I have had experience. I never speak on these subjects without experience. The district I represent has, ever Since I was born, been a district with multitudes of unemployed. Anyone who has done administrative work in Poplar or East London has had to face the unemployment problem for the last 50 years. Men have gone from the East End of London into the eastern counties, and are to-day getting their living in the eastern counties, after having passed through Laindon colony, and the Hollesley Bay colony when it was under decent administration. We are crying out that the export trade of the country is going down, and that we ought to develop agriculture, and yet we are spending all this money on training men for occupations in which there is no outlet for them. We should employ them instead on reclaiming land which is at present derelict, on draining land that needs draining, and also on the prevention of flooding.
Ever Since unemployment has been discussed in this House we have talked about taking in a great area of land in LinColnshire connected with the Wash. I believe that scheme is in the pigeon-holes of the Board of Agriculture. When I hear hon. Members and others say that it would not pay to reclaim that land, I look across the North Sea to Holland and see what they have done there. They have reclaimed from the sea miles of land which the Dutch will put to productive purposes. I have got up to say that I consider it is a waste to spend this money in the way which has been proposed by the Ministry. I have been round these centres. It looks fine to see young men getting good food for a few weeks. I have been also to the settlements where we have trained men to go out to the Dominions. I do not want to see young men kept in idleness, because that is the worst thing that can happen to any human being, and especially to the young, but I do not want them to be dragooned in the fashion suggested earlier and to have only pocket money. I want them to be employed in the ordinary manner, as my forbears were employed in building railways up and down the country; only instead of building railways I want them to be employed along the lines which I have suggested. There is no earthly reason why the Minister should not put his two feet down and say to the Treasury and to the Board of Agriculture "I will not spend this money in this wasteful manner; I will spend it in a way that is useful both to the country and to the men with whom I am dealing."

10.46 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I propose quite shortly to answer some of the points which have been raised in what, to me at any rate, has been a very interesting and in many respects very satisfactory Debate. In the whole course of this discussion, no one on any side of the House has done anything but recognise the difficulties of my situation and, in more than one instance, to pay a well-deserved tribute to the efforts which the officers of my Department are making in that most difficult situation. I wish to make that recognition at once.
With regard to what has just been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I confess that I have a very great deal of
sympathy with him. He talks about putting people on to the land, which we should have reclaimed. Obviously, before you can put people on the land, you must make agriculture in this country pay. That is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture is trying to do at this moment. I have hopes of the future that, when agriculture, as a result of the efforts which are being made, is a paying proposition, you might ask men, with a reasonable prospect of making their livings, to do those things which the right hon. Gentleman suggests should be done. I have no sympathy at all with the suggestion that you should encourage men to go on the land or to go into anything else unless you are reasonably satisfied that, when you put them there, they have a reasonable chance of making a living.
The first point that was put in this Debate was a comparatively small one, and it was put by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). He asked that more publicity should be given in regard to the facilities which Employment Exchanges offer. Certainly I will consider that, and when I say that I will consider it I mean that I will do my utmost to ensure that the fullest publicity is given in the exchanges, in order that it might be well known what facilities the exchanges offer. The next of the points raised was by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) about the courts of referees. He pointed out that there is a decrease of £74,000 in the Estimates, and he wanted to know why there was a decrease. The Estimate for 1932 was £124,000, and that for 1933 Was £50,000—a decrease of £74,000. The decrease has taken place for two reasons. The Estimate only provides for the courts of referees up to the end of June. That is the main reason for the decrease, and it accounts for £50,000 out of the £74,000. The second reason is that there is an anticipated reduction of the number of cases coming before the courts and in the average number of cases expected. The number coming before the courts is now fairly constant, whereas last year there was an increased number in the early part of the year, as a result of the Anomalies Act.

Mr. BATEY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is going to carry on the courts of referees after June?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Of course we are, but this Estimate only provides up to the end of June. There is another point which caused a great deal of interest—and I am not surprised—and that is as to why it was that we were asking the comparatively small sum—it is rather anomalous to talk about the "comparatively small sum"—of £22,500,000 in the Supplementary Estimate to provide for transitional payments over the remaining three-quarters of the year. It is pointed out that up to June the amount provided for transitional payments is £31,400,000, which is a decrease of £29,000,000 as compared with last year.

Mr. LAWS0N: On page 4 of the Estimates it will be seen that last year, 1932, the Estimate was worth £54,350,000, and this year it is £31,400,000, which shows a decrease of £22,950,000.

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is not quite the point with which I was dealing. The reason for this apparent discrepancy in the amount which we require after June, as compared with the amount that we are spending up to June—which is one quarter of the financial year—is that provision is made in the Estimates for transitional payments for the whole year for those persons who come on to it by reason of the fact that they have exhausted their 26 weeks standard benefit, whereas provision is only made up to 30th June for those who come on to transitional payments by reason of the fact that they no longer satisfy the 30 stamps contribution qualification. So you must divide into these two classes those who are entitled to transitional payments—the first class being those who come on to it by reason of the fact that they have exhausted their 26 weeks standard benefit and these are provided for up to the end of the year. Those who are not provided for up to the end of the year and for whom we shall have to make provision to the extent of £22,500,000 are those who come on to transitional payments by reason of the fact that they have not got 30 stamps to their credit.
The point which I think the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) had in mind was this: The White Paper issued in the autumn of 1931 gave the estimated saving which would result from the application of the means test at £10,000,000. That gave an estimated Cost of transitional payments of £37,500,000.
In fact transitional payments cost £54,000,000 in 1932–33. If the means test had not been in operation at all this figure would have been increased by nearly £16,000,000. The increase is not due to harshness of administration in any way at all. It arises from the fact that more persons were entitled to transitional payments than was expected and the total cost of transitional payments in 1932–33, namely, £54,000,000, is actually £6,500,000 more than was estimated would be the cost even without the needs test. That is the explanation of what is really a very complicated figure.

Mr. LAWS0N: You are only asking for £31,400,000 this year, and that is £23,000,000 less than last year.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, but here again it is explained by the fact that only part of the cost of transitional payments is provided for up to the end of the year. Part of it, on the other hand, has to be provided for out of the Supplementary Estimate. That is the explanation.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), in, if I may say so, a most interesting and not unhelpful speech, called attention to the difficulties which the whole Committee will appreciate, namely, the difficulties which have arisen from difference of treatment, and therefore apparent anomalies, between one district and another. She read passages from the report of the Royal Commission, and she said, "The Royal Commission said you could do this and you could do that; why on earth do you not do it? If you would only give these directions which the Royal Commission recommend, the anomalies would cease." She suggested, naturally enough, though without fully appreciating the position in which I am, that I must be held responsible for all these doubts and difficulties and hardships which arise in various parts of the country.
The truth of the matter is that I am bound by the Order-in-Council, which is the existing law, and which came into effect in September, 1931. These recom-

mendations, many of which, if I may say so, are very good ones, were made in the report which came out subsequently to the Order-in-Council. Under the existing law I have no power at all to give directions of any sort or kind; but the very points to which the hon. Member called attention—and I agree that they are all points which must be fully and carefully considered—are being carefully considered, and will, I hope, be dealt with in the forthcoming legislation. Really, however, the hon. Member must not blame me for or charge me with not doing something which the House of Commons has given me no power whatever to do, namely, giving directions with regard to these cases of anomaly. We have done a great deal by way of administrative action in endeavouring as far as we can to smooth over these difficulties and anomalies as between one part of the country and another, and we have not been unsuccessful.

I very much regret to say that I cannot deal as fully as I should have liked with the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey)—I mean, deal with the points that he raised; but I will endeavour to answer as best I can the questions that he put. He raised doubts and criticisms about the administration in Durham. It is not the first time he has done that, and I do not suppose it will be the last, but I would remind him of the promise that I gave earlier in the Debate, when I told him that, in pursuance of the request which he himself made, I had called for a report on that administration, and that the report will be laid on the Table. I am reminded that I have no time to proceed any further with answering the questions that have been put, and, therefore, I must reluctantly forego the pleasure of dealing with them. I will end as I began, by thanking the Committee for the way in which they have received my Estimates.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,592,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 187.

Division No. 181.]
AYES.
[11.0 P.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cape, Thomas
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)


Batey, Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Edwards, Charles


Buchanan, George
Daggar, George
Grenfell, David Root (Glamorgan)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Hicks, Ernest George
McEntee, Valentine L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jenkins, Sir William
Mainwaring, William Henry
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Milner, Major James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley}


Lawson, John James
Parkinson, John Allen



Logan, David Gilbert
Price, Gabriel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Hales, Harold K.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Potter, John


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hanbury, Cecil
PowNail, Sir Assheton


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hanley, Dennis A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bateman, A. L.
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hartland, George A.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Batterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rankin, Robert


Borodale, Viscount.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Bossom, A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Hepworth, Joseph
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Robinson, John Roland


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Burnett, John George
Iveagh, Countess of
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Jackson, sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jennings, Roland
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Selley, Harry R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Law, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Slater, John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Conant, R. J. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cook, Thomas A.
Liddall, Walter S.
Soper, Richard


Copeland, Ida
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Crooks, J. Smedley
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spens, William Patrick


Cross, R. H.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stevenson, James


Crossley, A. C.
McCorquodale, M. s.
Storey, Samuel


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Strauss, Edward A.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Strickland, Captain w. F.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Dickie, John P.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
McKie, John Hamilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Eastwood, John Francis
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Magnay, Thomas
Thompson, Luke


Elmley, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Vaughan, Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fermoy, Lord
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Milne, Charles
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fox, Sir Gifford
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gledhill, Gilbert
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Goff, Sir Park
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph
Wise, Alfred R.


Goldie, Noel B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Womersley, Walter James


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wood. Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gower, Sir Robert
Nunn, William
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James



Greene, William p. C.
Palmer, Francis Noel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pearson, William G.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Petherick, M.



Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'vsrh'pt'n, Blist'n)

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.